PANCHABHAI B. CHAUDHARI, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 3098/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3572 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY C GOSALIA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) I.T.A. NO. 3098 /MUM/ 20 15 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 11 ) SHRI PANCHABHAI B. CHOUDHARY 1, AMAR KUNJ APARTMENT PLOT NO. 2, BESANT STREET SANTACRUZ WEST MUMBAI - 400 054. VS. ITO - 19(2)(4) PIRAMAL CHAMBERS LOWER PAREL MUMBAI - 400 012. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO . AAAPC4322P ASSESSEE BY SHRI AJAY C. GOSALIA DEPARTMENT BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR DATE OF HEARING 1 . 7 . 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 . 7 . 201 6 O R D E R THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.3.2015 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - 34, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO A.Y. 2010 - 11. 2. LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED AN EX - PARTE OR DER ON THE REASONING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED T O APPEAR ON THE DATE OF HEARING. HE INVITED MY ATTENTION TO PAGE NO S . 20 & 21 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT NOTICE OF HEARING SENT BY LEARNED CIT(A) BY REGISTERED POST HAS BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POS TAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE NOTING THAT THE ADDRESSEE HAS LEFT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RESIDING IN THE SAME ADDRESS AND EVEN RECEIVED THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE LD CIT(A), SINCE HE DID NO T RECEIVE THE NOTICE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO OBTAINED A CERTIFICATE FROM THE SUB - POST MATER, WHEREIN THE SUB - POST MASTER HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RESIDING AT THE SAME ADDRESS AND INADVERTENTLY DELIVERY POSTMAN HAS RETURNED THE T APA L. ACCORDINGLY, LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE MR. PANCHABHAI B. CHOUDHARY 2 WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY PLEADED THAT AN OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A). 3. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE DID NOT CO N T ROVERT THE FACTUAL ASPECT S PRESENTED BY LEARNED AR. 4. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A), AND IN THE INTEREST OF NATURA L JUSTICE, ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PROVIDED A PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AND RESTORE ALL THE MATTERS TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1 .7.2016 SD/ - (B.R.BASKARAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 1 / 7 / 20 1 6 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY O RDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI PS