M/S ARCADE DEALCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is an investment company. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, vide order dt. 30/04/2010, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 49,480/-. The records of the said assessment subsequently came to be examined by the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax and on such examination, he found that the claim of the assessee of having received share capital and share premium aggregating to Rs.11.70 Crores, was accepted by the Assessing Officer without making enquiries and verification which was called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. He, therefore, issued a notice u/s 263 of the Act, fixing the case of the assessee for hearing on 28/01/2013. The said notice, however, could not be served as the assessee company was not found to be in existence at the given address. The ld. CIT, therefore, proceeded to pass an order u/s 263 of the Act, ex-parte, whereby he set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act with a direction to the Assessing Officer to make an assessment afresh after making an independent, detailed and complete enquiry on the issue of share capital and share premium aggregating to Rs.11.70 Crores, received by the assessee company during the year under consideration.

Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Arcade Dealcom Private Limited M/s. Arcade Dealcom Private Limited 3. Aggrieved by the order of Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee has the ld. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that only one notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued by the ld. CIT on 11/01/2013 fixing the hearing one notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued by the ld. CIT on 11/01/2013 fixing the hearing one notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued by the ld. CIT on 11/01/2013 fixing the hearing on 28/01/2013 and since the same was sent by the ld. CIT to the old address of the on 28/01/2013 and since the same was sent by the ld. CIT to the old address of the on 28/01/2013 and since the same was sent by the ld. CIT to the old address of the assessee company, it could not be complied with. He has contended that th could not be complied with. He has contended that th could not be complied with. He has contended that the ld. CIT, however, did not give any further opportunity to the assessee and proceeded to pass the however, did not give any further opportunity to the assessee and proceeded to pass the however, did not give any further opportunity to the assessee and proceeded to pass the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act, impugned order u/s 263 of the Act, ex-parte, without giving proper and sufficient , without giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He has contended that there is opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He has contended that there is opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He has contended that there is thus a clear violation of principles of natural justice and even the ld. CIT D/R, has not been able to violation of principles of natural justice and even the ld. CIT D/R, has not been able to violation of principles of natural justice and even the ld. CIT D/R, has not been able to rebut or controvert this position which is clearly apparent from the impugned order rebut or controvert this position which is clearly apparent from the impugned order rebut or controvert this position which is clearly apparent from the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act. passed by the ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the Kolkata, the 19th day of July, 2021.