IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAIN I , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 1225 / AHD/20 1 1 A. Y. 200 4 - 0 5 SMT. RENUKABEN B. SONI, PROP. CHOKSI MINALAL KALIDAS & SONS, AKSHAR KUTIR, OPP. DSA SCHOOL JUDGES BUNGALOW ROAD, BODAKDEV, AHMEDABD. PAN: ADIPS 1892F VS THE ITO, WARD 6(2), AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH , SR.D.R. , ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI TUSHAR P. HEMANI , A.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 28 / 1 1 /201 4 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 / 1 2 /201 4 / O R D E R PER BENCH THIS IS AN A PPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - XVI , AHMEDABAD DATED 2 4 . 11 . 201 0 . 2 . THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 67,878 / - U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT . 3. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION OF 79 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONDONATI ON A PPLICATION EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR DELAY. THE BENCH WAS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A ITA NO. 1225 /AHD/201 1 RENUKABEN B. SONI VS. ITO, WARD 6(2), AHMEDABAD . FOR A.Y. 200 4 - 0 5 - 2 - REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON FILING OF THE APPEAL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME; THEREFORE, THE DELAY WAS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL WAS ADMITTED FOR HEARING. 4 . AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE A R OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT INFORMED THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND THEREFORE THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT RECEIVE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PENALTY ORDER WHICH WAS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY UNSERVED. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AFTER CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 5. THE DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) . 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSING THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECEIVE THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AS WELL AS THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE AO WHICH WAS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY UNSERVED DUE TO CHANGE OF ADDRESS. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE BARRED BY LIMITATION BEFORE CIT(A) . THE CIT (A) HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO INFORM THE CORRECT ADDRESS TO THE AO AND HENCE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. ITA NO. 1225 /AHD/201 1 RENUKABEN B. SONI VS. ITO, WARD 6(2), AHMEDABAD . FOR A.Y. 200 4 - 0 5 - 3 - 7. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN ORDER TO RE NDER SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IN THE MATTER ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE CIT(A). WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO ITS FILE FOR ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. SD/ - SD/ - ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ( N.S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 23 / 1 2 /20 1 4 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI , SR. P . S . / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - III, AHMEDABAD 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD