Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM
BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM Assessment Year : 2013 – 14 Shri Ramesh Kumar Jalan, Flat H 1006, SNN Raj Lake View Apartments, Phase II, Billekahalli, vs. ITO, Ward – 4 (3) (1), Ranka C, Off Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore Bangalore – 560076. PAN: AAYPJ7866P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shree Balaram P Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT DR Date of Hearing : 28.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.01.2020 O R D E R
PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee and it is directed against the ex parte order of CIT(A) – 4 Bengaluru dated 24.07.2018 for A. Y. 2013 – 14.
Since this order of CIT (A) is ex parte qua the assessee, we first decide this aspect as to whether it needs to be restored back to CIT (A) for a fresh decision after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides because if we feel it proper to remand the matter to CIT (A) than there is no need to discuss about merit of the issues raised before us. It was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that it is noted by CIT (A) in first para of his order that in spite of several notices issued to the assessee, there was no compliance. He submitted that this is the contention raised by the assessee in Ground No. 4 raised before the tribunal that the assessee had not received these notices issued by CIT (A) because these notices were issued to old address and not the new address given by the assessee in Form 35. He submitted that under these facts and in the interest of justice, entire matter (B)/2018 Page 2 of 2 should be restored to CIT 9A) for fresh decision after providing adequate effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Learned DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT (A). 4. We have considered rival submissions. We find that the address of the assessee as per the assessment order and the order of CIT (A) is different and the address of the assessee as per Form 35 filed before CIT (A) is different. In the Form 36 filed before the tribunal, the address is same as given in Form 35. Under these facts, we find force in this claim of the assessee that the notices issued by CIT (A) were not served on the assessee. Therefore, we feel it proper to restore back the matter to CIT (A) for a fresh decision after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. We order accordingly. In view of this, no adjudication on merit is called for at the present stage. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assesssee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.