NAYNA PRADIP PATEL, MUMBAI V. ITO 24(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6077/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3623 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D PRABHAKAR REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: S C TIWARI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Assessment record
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND PAWAN SINGH, JM ./ I.T.A. NO . 6 077 / MUM/ 20 1 1 ( / ASSESSMENT YEA R : 20 0 7 - 08 ) MRS.NAYNA PRA DIP PATEL, 47/394, UNNAT NAGAR, GOREGAON (W), MUMBAI - 400062 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 24(3)(2), MUMBAI . ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ ./PAN. : AAGPP3015Q / A PPELLANT BY SHRI S C TIWARI / R ESPONDENT BY SHRI D PRABHAKAR REDDY / DATE OF HEARING : 1 4.3 . 201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 1 4.3 . 201 6 / O R D E R P ER B R BASKARAN, AM : T HE AP PEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.7.2011 PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) - 3 4 , MUMBAI AND IT RELATE S TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 08 . 2. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE AO HAS PASSED AN ASSESSMENT OR DER TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT. THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO AND HENCE IT COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO . THE ASSESSEE ALSO OBTAINED A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER UPON RECEIPT OF T HE DEMAND NOTICE AND THEREAFTER FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT( A) BELATEDLY. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN - LIMINE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE ABOVE SAID FACTS. I.T.A. NO. 6 077 / MUM/ 20 1 1 2 3. THE LD. DR PRODUCED ASSESSMENT RECORD AND ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME , WE N OTICE THAT THE AO HAS ISSUED NOTICE TO A WRONG ADDRESS AND HENCE, THERE IS MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST NATURAL JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE S URGED IN THIS APPEAL REQUIRE FRESH EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE ALL THE ISSUE S TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH EXAMINATION OF THE SAME, AFTER AFFORDING NECESSARY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA R D T O THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 14 TH MARCH, 2 01 6 . 14 TH MARCH, 2016 S D SD ( PAWAN SINGH ) ( B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 14 TH MARCH, 2 01 6 . . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. / CIT CON CERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, T RUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI