Girdharilal Bhartia, Mumbai V. ITO, Ward 44(1), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 565/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1580 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARINDAM BHATTACHARJEE ACIT
• Assessee Lawyers: ARVIND AGARWAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM ./ ITA NO.565/KOL/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 GIRDHARILAL BHARTIA 126, N M JOSHI MARG, MATHURDAS MILL COMPOUND, C D HOUSE, LOWER PAREL (WEST), MUMBAI 400 013 VS. I.T.O. WARD 44(1), KOLKATA 3, GOVT. PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA 700 001. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : ADZPB 9756 G (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ARINDAM BHATTACHARJEE, ACIT, CIT DR / DATE OF HEARING : 04/08/2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/08/2017 / O R D E R PER DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-13, KOLKATA, IN APPEAL NO.487/CIT(A)-13/2014-15/KOL, DATED 08.03.2016, WHICH IN TURN ARISES OUT OF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S.147/143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) DATED 29.03.2014. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) PASSED AN EX PARTE ORDER STATING THAT THE NOTICES, WHICH WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL GIRDHARILAL BHARTIA ITA NO.565/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE | 2 AUTHORITIES. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET THE NOTICES FROM LD. CIT(A), BECAUSE OF CHANGE IN THE COMMUNICATION ADDRESS. THE COMMUNICATION ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS AS FOLLOWS: GIRDHARILAL BHARTIYA C/O. GHANSHYAM INTERNATIONAL 158, J. L. BAJAJ STREET KESHORAM KATRA KOLKATA 700 007. WHEREAS NEW ADDRESS OF COMMUNICATION STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO.36 READS AS UNDER: GIRDHARILAL BHARTIYA 126, N. M. JOSHI MARG, MATHURDAS MILL COMPOUND, C D HOUSE, LOWER PAREL (WEST) MUMBAI 400013. DUE TO CHANGE OF COMMUNICATION ADDRESS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET ANY NOTICE OF HEARING FROM THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, HE COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARING. THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THE EX PARTE ORDER STATING THE FOLLOWING: 3. IN THIS CASE NOTICE U/S.250 OF THE I.T ACT, 1961 WAS SENT TO THE APPELLANT FIXING HEARING ON 06.08.2015, 07.12.2015, 15.01.2016 & 23.02.2016. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT. THESE NOTICES SENT BY REGISTERED POST BUT HAVE BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT INTIMATED ANY NEW ADDRESS. IN LIGHT OF THESE FACTS THE APPEAL IS DECIDED EX PARTE. 4. PERUSAL OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL SHOWS THAT THE STAND TAKEN BY THE APPELLANTS ARE ALREADY CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION. THEREFORE, AFTER CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY MADE ADDITION AND I CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. GIRDHARILAL BHARTIA ITA NO.565/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE | 3 3. THE LD. COUNSEL STATED THAT ASSESSEE WANTED TO PARTICIPATE IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BUT BECAUSE OF CHANGE OF COMMUNICATION ADDRESS, HE DID NOT GET THE NOTICES OF HEARING AND AS A RESULT, HE COULD NOT ATTEND THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. COUNSEL, THEREFORE, REQUESTED THE BENCH TO REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE, HOWEVER, DID NOT OBJECT THE PROPOSAL OF THE LD. COUNSEL TO REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED SIMPLY BECAUSE HE DID NOT GET THE NOTICES OF HEARING FROM THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) BECAUSE OF CHANGE OF COMMUNICATION ADDRESS. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES A FRESH EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENCES AS REQUIRED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THIS IS TO ENSURE GIRDHARILAL BHARTIA ITA NO.565/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE | 4 THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THIS APPEAL FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30/08/2017 . SD/- (N. V. VASUDEVAN) SD/- (DR. A.L.SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /KOLKATA ; DATED 30/08/2017 [RS, SPS] / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : // TRUE COPY// BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O, I.T.A.T, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA . 1. / THE APPELLANT GIRDHARILAL BHARTIA 2. / THE RESPONDENT- I.T.O, WARD 44(1), KOLKATA. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), :KOLKATA. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. / GUARD FILE.