PUSHPANJALI INTRADE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

After hearing rival contentions, we are of the considered opinion that this matter should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law, on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. Both the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) have passed ex-parte orders. The ld. Counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that the address of the assessee, recorded by them in the Assessing Officer’s as well as in the order of the ld. CIT(A) is 86, Canning Street, Kolkata – 700001, whereas the address given by the assessee in his return of income was 57/3G/1, 3rd Floor, NSC Bose Road, Kolkata – 700040 and hence, the notices were not served. We further find that the assessee has given yet another address in Form No. 36 i.e., 2/1, Madhav Seth Lane, Kolakta – 700007. 2.1. Under these circumstances, we direct the assessee to appear before the Assessing Officer and furnish his correct current address and thereafter co-operate in the disposal off the appeal. The assessee is further directed to pay cost of Assessment Year: 2014-15 Pushpanjali Intrade Pvt. Ltd. Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) s. Five Thousand Only) in favour of Prime Minister Relief Fund in favour of Prime Minister Relief Fund, for having not appeared before the ld. CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer, in this having not appeared before the ld. CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer, in this having not appeared before the ld. CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer, in this proceeding. The Assessing Officer Assessing Officer shall verify the said payment by the assessee the said payment by the assessee and thereafter proceed to make make de novo assessment, in accordance with law assessment, in accordance with law. 2.2. For this proposition to levy costs, while condoning the actions of the For this proposition to levy costs, while condoning the actions of the For this proposition to levy costs, while condoning the actions of the assessee as reasonable, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court assessee as reasonable, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court assessee as reasonable, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle in of 2015 & 508 of 2015, dt. September 19, 2017, Circle in ITA No. 493 of 2015 & 508 of 2015, dt. September 19, 2017, wherein at para wherein at para 11, it has been held as follows: 11, it has been held as follows:- “11. We do not find that any of these decided cases have any application to “11. We do not find that any of these decided cases have any application to “11. We do not find that any of these decided cases have any application to the facts before us. We have imposed the costs not because the appellant s. We have imposed the costs not because the appellant s. We have imposed the costs not because the appellant was not acting bona fide but finding that even after the legal advice was was not acting bona fide but finding that even after the legal advice was was not acting bona fide but finding that even after the legal advice was obtained, the matter was decided in favour of the assessee, there was time obtained, the matter was decided in favour of the assessee, there was time obtained, the matter was decided in favour of the assessee, there was time which was consumed and in all this delay of 2984 day which was consumed and in all this delay of 2984 days occurred. While s occurred. While condoning such delay, it is permissible for court, in its discretion, to impose condoning such delay, it is permissible for court, in its discretion, to impose condoning such delay, it is permissible for court, in its discretion, to impose costs. Eventually, the rights and equities have to be balanced. To render costs. Eventually, the rights and equities have to be balanced. To render costs. Eventually, the rights and equities have to be balanced. To render substantial justice and not to enrich the Revenue that the costs have been substantial justice and not to enrich the Revenue that the costs have been substantial justice and not to enrich the Revenue that the costs have been imposed. It is not, therefore, a case where the State has been allowed to It is not, therefore, a case where the State has been allowed to It is not, therefore, a case where the State has been allowed to retain any benefit or has been benefited by any directions. It is the Court retain any benefit or has been benefited by any directions. It is the Court retain any benefit or has been benefited by any directions. It is the Court which in its discretion has imposed this condition. We do not find any basis which in its discretion has imposed this condition. We do not find any basis which in its discretion has imposed this condition. We do not find any basis to alter it. The request in that behal to alter it. The request in that behalf is refused.”

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as directed above. Kolkata, the Kolkata, the 8th day of October, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- [S.S. Godara] [J. Sudhakar Reddy J. Sudhakar Reddy] Judicial Member Accountant Accountant Member Dated : 08.11.2019 {SC SPS}

1. 1. Pushpanjali Intrade Pvt. Ltd Pushpanjali Intrade Pvt. Ltd 2/1, Madhav Seth Lane Kolkata – 700 007 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Kolkata 5(2), Kolkata 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.