SRI SATHYANARAYANA VAIKUNTA ASHRAMA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD(EXEMPTIONS) WARD-3, BANGALORE

At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that as per the impugned order passed by ld. CIT(E), it is stated that notice of hearing was sent to the assessee by speed post but the same has been returned by postal authorities with the remarks ‘Insufficient address’. He submitted that at the same address, the assessee has received the notice of hearing from the Tribunal and the copy of order from CIT (E). She submitted that under these facts, the entire matter should be restored back to the file of CIT(E) for fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. The ld. DR of revenue supported the impugned orders of ld. CIT(E), Bangalore.

We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this is undisputed that the notice of hearing sent by CIT(E) to the assessee had not been & 2913/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 2 served on the assessee because in the impugned order itself, it is noted by CIT(E) that the notice has come back unserved with the remarks ‘Insufficient address’. We also find that on the same address, the order was sent by CIT (E) and it has been submitted before us that the order sent by CIT (E) was duly served on the assessee. In the form 36 filed by assessee before the Tribunal also, the address given is same and the notice of hearing was sent by Tribunal to this address which has been duly served on the assessee. Considering all these facts, we feel it proper to set aside the impugned orders of ld. CIT (E) and restore back the matter to his file for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee. We order accordingly. In view of this decision, no adjudication on merit is called for at the present stage.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.