MEDICARE TPA SERVICE (I) PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, KOL - 4, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1045/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Medicare Tpa Service (I) Pvt. Ltd………………………......…………………………………………Appellant 6B, Bishop Lefroy Road Ground Floor 10, 6B, Paul Mansion Bhowanipore Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aadcm 1682 L] Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -4..................................................…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22Nd, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata - 4, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 27/02/2018, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Outset We Find That There Is A Delay Of 13 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal On Time. Hence The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of, Health Insurance Claim Processing Etc. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30/09/2013, Declaring Income Of Rs.4,80,10,710/-. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.5,37,81,250/- Under The Normal Provisions & At Rs.2,72,98,018/- As Book Profit U/S 115Jb Of The Act. The Ld. Pr. Cit, Issued A Showcause Notice Dt. 04/2/2017 Proposing Revision Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 04/12/2015, By Invoking His Powers U/S 263 Of The Act,On The Following Points:-

property; and whether the developers were or were not ready and willing to carry out their part of the bargain. Since we are of the view that sub-clause (v) of Section 2(47) of the Act is not attracted on the facts of this case, we need not go into any other factual question. 24. The matter can also