M/S TRIMUDRA VINCOM (P) LTD,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the business of trading and investment in shares. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 07.11.2009 declaring total loss of Rs.58,130/-. Although the said return was originally processed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1), the assessment A.Y. 2009-2010 M/s. Trimudra Vincom (P) Limited was subsequently reopened by him and a notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee on 18.11.2011. In pursuance of the said notice, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3) vide an order dated 31.12.2011 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.32,720/-. The said assessment was subsequently set aside by the concerned ld. CIT vide an order dated 14.03.2014 passed under section 263 with a direction to the Assessing Officer to make the assessment afresh after conducting thorough and detailed enquiries on the issue of share capital of Rs.8,83,50,000/- claimed to be introduced by the assessee during the year under consideration. In compliance with the direction of the ld. CIT given in the order under section 263, a notice under section 142(1) was issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee on 03.06.2014. The said notice as well as further letters issued by the Assessing Officer fixing the case of the assessee for hearing, however, remained un-complied with by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, therefore, was left with no option but to complete the assessment ex- parte to the best of his judgment on the basis of material available on record. In the assessment so completed under section 144/263/147/143(3) of the Act vide an order dated 09.03.2015, entire amount of share capital introduced by the assessee during the year under consideration was treated by the Assessing Officer as unexplained and addition to the extent of Rs.8,83,50,000/- was made by him to the total income of the assessee under section 68.

Against the order passed under section 144/263/147/143(3) of the Act, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non- prosecution vide his appellate order dated 19.12.2016 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. A.Y. 2009-2010 M/s. Trimudra Vincom (P) Limited

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 that notice under section 142(1) as well as the subsequent letters were issued by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings to the wrong address at 5, Hari Shankar Lane, Kolkata-700007 instead of the correct address of the assessee at 8, Hari Sarkar Lane, Kolkata-700007 and this position clearly evident from the address given by the Assessing Officer himself in the assessment order is not disputed even by the ld. D.R. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the notice under section 142(1) as well as subsequent letters stated to be issued by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings thus were not received by the assessee and even the notices stated to be issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals) fixing the appeal of the assessee for hearing from time to time were never served on the assessee as is clearly mentioned in para no. 2 of the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals). Keeping in view these relevant facts of the case, we find merit in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that proper and sufficient opportunity of hearing was not given to the assessee either by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and even by the ld. CIT(Appeals) during the course of appellate proceedings. The ld. D.R. has also not been able to dispute this position, which is clearly evident from the record. We, therefore, find it just and proper to set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for completing the assessment afresh after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. As undertaken by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the assessee shall make due compliance before the Assessing Officer and shall extend all the possible cooperation in order to enable the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment afresh expeditiously. A.Y. 2009-2010 M/s. Trimudra Vincom (P) Limited

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on April 16, 2021.