2022 (5) TMI 1093

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... This case was first fixed for hearing on 21.09.2021. Thereafter, on three occasions the case was adjourned since the Bench was not functioning. On 20.12.2021 none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Directions were given to issue a registered post with AD through Departmental Representative. On next date of hearing i.e. 02.02.2022 again there was no appearance. One more opportunity was given by issuing a notice through "RPAD" through D/R as well as e-mail. On 28.02.2022 when the case was called up again there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee. In the case records no power of attorney has been filed. All efforts have been made by the Registry to communicate with the assessee but there is no response from the assessee. It seems tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by him. 7. For that the Ld. PCIT should not have invoked the provisions of sec. 263 without himself examining the details and evidences but no such examination was made and no lack of enquiry was found in the order of the Ld. AO. 8. For that on the facts and circumstances the order the Ld. PCIT may be set aside. 9. For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any ground/s of appeal on or before hearing of the appeal." 4. Brief facts of the case as per the records are that the assessee is a private limited company. Income of Rs.16,620/- declared in the return of filed on 18.01.2016. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS and during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was asked ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unquoted shares worth Rs.5,00,000/- from Vasia Mathew on 24.11.2014 has not been disclosed by the assessee company in its books and thereby had a effect of underassessment of Rs.1,25,00,000/- with consequential tax effect of Rs.38,62,500/-. AO has passed the impugned assessment order without any application of mind nor conducting any enquiries or verifications which should have been made in this case. 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 263(1) of I T Act, 1961 you are hereby given an opportunity of being heard to show cause as to why the impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) by DCIT, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata on 15.09.2017 for A.Y. 2015-16 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....see. However, ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the order of the ld. PCIT. 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the impugned order as well as the assessment order. 9. We find that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for two issues namely "sales turnover mismatch" and "investment in unlisted equity shares". In the body of the assessment order there is no discussion about the reasons for selection for limited scrutiny nor there is any discussion of the issues raised before us. Though there is a reply filed by the assessee before the ld. PCIT stating that the required information were filed but they are not sufficient to prove that whether ld. AO ....