M/S JITENDRA KUMAR THIRANI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-33(1), KOLKATA

At the outset, it is noted that the impugned order is an ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and that only two notices were issued to the assessee fixing the date of hearing within a span of two months. And it was brought to my notice that there was change in address of assessee and I note that the address in Form 36 filed before the Tribunal shows a different address i.e. Sri Sri Kutir, 14, Jatin Bagchi Road, Kolkata-700 029 whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has noted the assessee’s address as Jitendra Kumar Thirani, 9th floor, Suite A1, Chatterjee International Centre, 33A, J. L. Nehru Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700 071 which, according to assessee, was as per the PAN address,. Moreover, the assessee had filed a sworn affidavit, wherein the deponent in the capacity of Karta of HUF assessee has categorically denied receiving any notices from Ld. CIT(A) dated 11.02.2019 and 23.04.2019 by post or e-mail, so without proof of notice being served upon the assessee, it cannot be presumed that assessee was not interested to pursue the appeal. Taking note of the aforesaid facts and since the Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the appellate order on merits, I am of the considered view that assessee did not get proper opportunity before the First Appellate Authority, therefore, I am inclined to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and M/s. Jitendra Kumar Thirani., AY- 2015-16 remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to participate in the appellate proceeding before the Ld. CIT(A) diligently and furnish the correct postal address to Ld. CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

CIT- , Kolkata.

DR, ITAT, Kolkata. (sent through e-mail)