M/S CIDER TRACOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-6(1), KOLKATA

The registry has noted a delay of 27 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. Sr. Counsel. Keeping in view the fact that the year 2020 was marred by Corona Pandemic (Cavid-19) and keeping in view the period of delay, we condone and delay and proceed for adjudication of the same on merits.

The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that ‘limited scrutiny’ was carried out for the year to verify three aspects as detailed in the assessment order.

These aspects were duly verified by Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, Ld. Pr. CIT erred in enlarging the scope of ‘limited scrutiny’ by way of revision. For the same, Ld. Sr. Counsel relied on various judicial pronouncements, the copies of which have been placed on record. The Ld. CIT-DR, on the other hand, drew attention to the fact that the assessee did not appear during revisional proceedings and these arguments were never considered while revising the order.

After due consideration of assessment order as well as revisionary order, we find that though the assessment was framed by Ld. AO to examine various aspects as enumerated therein, however, Ld. Pr. CIT, upon perusal of case records, opined that Ld. AO failed to take logical action on the information available with him. One of the grounds was issue of large share premium but Ld. AO completed the assessment without necessary legal verification or investigation and did not make addition on account of Share Capital for Rs.75 Lacs. The failure to do has made the assessment order amenable to revision u/s 263. It could also be seen that though various show-causes notices were issued by Ld. Pr. CIT, however, none appeared for assessee. Finally, Ld. AO was directed to make fresh assessment to examine the issue on the lines as stated in the revisionary order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

After careful consideration, we find that since no effective representation was made by the assessee during revisionary proceedings and all the arguments are being raised for the first time before us, it would be in the fitness of things if the matter of revision be restored back to the file of Ld. Pr. CIT with a direction to the assessee to substantiate his case and explain as to why the revision is not required in the assessment order.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes.