BLOOM COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 9(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 3. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed this appeal of the assessee on the ground of non-compliance on the part of the assessee to notice u/s 131 of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no notice u/s 131 of the Act, was issued to any of the share applicants company and Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bloom Commercial Pvt. Ltd that there is no whisper in the assessment order as well in respect of the notice u/s 131 of the Act, being issued by the Assessing Officer. On perusal of the assessment order we agree with this contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Hence there was violation of principles of natural justice at the stage of assessment. The ld. CIT(A) has not disposed off the case on merits. The assessee has demonstrated that notice u/s 131 of the Act, were not served on the Directors/Investors and hence there was no compliance. It was pleaded that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 3.2. The ld. D/R, though not leaving his ground, ultimately submitted that the issue may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer as certain investigations need to be completed.

In view of the above submissions, we set aside this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law, after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, on the grounds of natural justice, subject to the payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) by the assessee in favour of Prime Minister Relief Fund, for having not appeared before the ld. CIT(A) as well as before us in this proceeding. The Assessing Officer shall verify the said payment by the assessee and thereafter proceed to dispose off the case on merits. 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 in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle in of 2015 & 508 of 2015, dt. September 19, 2017, wherein at para 11, it has been held as follows:- “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 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 which was consumed and in all this delay of 2984 days occurred. While 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 substantial justice and not to enrich the Revenue that the costs have been Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bloom Commercial Pvt. Ltd imposed. 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 which in its discretion has imposed this condition. We do not find any basis to alter it. The request in that behalf is refused.” 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.