NIKHIL SILK MILLS PVT. LTD,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 18(3), NEW DELHI

A notice through speed post acknowledgement due was sent to the appellant on 11.03.2022, which has been returned un-served with a remark 'no such person". Notice has been issued to the appellant/assessee on the address A- 363, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201011and the same address has been mentioned in Form 36 by the assessee in the column of 'complete address for sending notices'. As per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. M/s. I Ven Interactive Ltd. dated 18.10.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 8132 of 2019, in absence of any specific information to the Assessing Officer with respect to change of address and/or change of the name of assessee, Assessing Officer would be justified in sending the notices at the available address mentioned in the PAN database of the assessee. Respectfully following the same, I hold that when the assessee has filed return mentioning a particular address as per his PAN database, which has also been noted by the Assessing Officer as well as by the assessee himself in Form No. 36 as complete address for sending the notices and the assessee is not found available on-the same address and no information about change of address to the Assessing Officer by the assessee, then we safely presume that all possible efforts have been made regarding service of notice on the assessee on the address given in PAN data by assessee and assessee is not available, then we have no alternate but to proceed ex parte qua assessee to decide this appeal after hearing the submissions of Id. Sr. Departmental Representative (DR). Therefore, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal on the basis of the material available and after hearing the submissions of ld. Sr. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue.

In ground No.1 and 1.1, the assessee has agitated that the ld.CIT(A) has not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was also contended that the ld.CIT(A) has stated in his order that some of the notices were CIT(A) without giving any final opportunity to the assessee.

The ld. Sr. DR, in all fairness, drawing my attention towards last para 7 of the first appellate order, submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has adjudicated the appeal of the assessee ex parte qua the assessee, therefore, the Department has no serious objection if the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after allowing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

On careful consideration of the above submissions and grounds of appeal stated by the assessee in Form No.36, I am of the considered opinion that the assessee has not been provided due opportunity of being heard before the ld.CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal summarily by passing cryptic order without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee in Form No.35. Therefore, I find it just and proper to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after allowing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee without being prejudiced from the earlier first appellate order.