Arindam Mukherjee, J. - (1.) The petitioner no. 1, namely, Co-ordination Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'CVPL') and Ashok Kumar Poddar one of the directors of petitioner no. 1 being the petitioner no. 2 in the writ petition has challenged an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata, I being the respondent no. 2, dated 14th January, 2013 under the provisions of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as also the notices dated 11th February, 2014 and 28th February, 2014 issued consequent upon the said order dated 14th January, 2013 being passed.
(2.) The petitioners say that the order dated 14th January, 2013 has been passed without serving due notice upon the petitioner and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner no.1 (the assessee) of being heard. The petitioners say that the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Kolkata, being the respondent no. 1 has assessed the return filed by Sadabahar Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at P-41, Princep Street, 6th Floor, Kolkata-700072 for the Assessment Year 2007-2008 and passed an assessment order in respect thereof on 28th April, 2010. The said Sadabahar Vanijya Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the 'Sadabahar') had the Permanent Account Number (in short 'PAN') AAJCS9856J. Subsequently, the name of Sadabahar has been changed to that of the petitioner no. 1, that is, CVPL. The income tax authorities had issued a PAN Card to CVPL on 7th March, 2006 with PAN AAJCS9856J being the same PAN that of Sadabahar. The petitioners show that the income tax return for the Assessment Year 2010-11 filed by Sadabahar appearing at page-20 of the writ petition and that filed by CVPL for the Assessment Year 2011-12 has the same PAN. The advocate for the petitioner by showing the two returns submit that Sadabahar had become CVPL was known to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 prior to 14th January, 2013 when the respondent no. 2 passed an order under the provisions of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and this knowledge will appear from the fact of issuance of the PAN Card to CVPL with the same PAN as also assessing CVPL for the subsequent assessment years with the same PAN that of Sadabahar. The petitioners submit that it was, therefore, incumbent upon the respondent no. 2 to serve a notice to CVPL and after affording CVPL an opportunity of hearing should have passed the order dated 14th January, 2013. Having not done so, the said order should be set aside and a fresh order should be passed after hearing CVPL.
(3.) The advocate for the petitioner then submit that the Commissioner of Income Tax is competent under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 to re-assess the order passed by the Assessment Officer but after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Any attempted service on Sadabahar after it had came to be known as CVPL cannot be held to be a proper and valid service and the Court should set aside such order directing rehearing of the matter after giving CVPL an opportunity of hearing.;