TRAVEL MAKERZ (INDIA) P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-25(3), NEW DELHI

For Assessee : Shri Rakesh Kumar Khiwani, Chartered Accountant. For Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 02.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 02.05.2019 ORDER

This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-9, New Delhi, Dated 18.05.2018, for the A.Y. 2014-2015.

2 ITA.No.5051/Del./2018 M/s. Travel Makerz (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. for hearing of the appeal. However, the notices returned. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that other notice on ITBA system was sent at another address of the assessee and notice were also sent through e-mail. The notice sent by post were returned back, but, the notice sent through e-mail are found to have delivered as no adverse delivery report has been reported in the system. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, noted that since assessee did not availed the opportunity of being heard, therefore, appeal of assessee were dismissed for non- prosecution.

3. After considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order without serving any notice of hearing upon the assessee, which fact is also clear from the observations of the Ld. CIT(A) that notices sent through speed-post were returned back. Therefore, no notice have been served upon the assessee for hearing of the appeal. Another notice sent through post on different address of the assessee and the 3 ITA.No.5051/Del./2018 M/s. Travel Makerz (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. same were returned back. However, as per the observations of the Ld. CIT(A), the notice sent through e-mail have been delivered upon assessee as no adverse delivery report have been reported in the system. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, however, submitted that due to change of the address, no notice have been served upon the assessee and even no notice sent through e-mail have been received by the assessee. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) did not decide the appeal of assessee on merit. No finding of fact have been given and no reasons for decision have been given in the impugned order. Thus, the Order is in violation of Section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, the impugned order have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, rightly contended that matter may be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh, as per Law. The Ld. D.R. also suggested that the matter could be remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh, as per Law.

Order pronounced in the open Court.