NAZIMA MUMTAZ,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, JANGIPUR, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

At the outset, the learned AR drew our attention to the fact that this is an ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). The learned AR drew our attention to the fact that originally the appeal was filed on 24.01.2012 in the jurisdiction of CIT(A) – XXXIV. Thereafter, the jurisdiction changed to CIT(A) – XXXVI and thereafter the case was transferred to CIT(A) – 12 [incumbent CIT(A)] who issued notice fixing the appeal for hearing on 11.05.2016 and since nobody appeared before him and filed any written submission, he fixed the case on 12.05.2017 and taking notice that nobody turned up on behalf of the assessee, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. According to learned AR due to the changes in jurisdiction as well as since notice of hearing was not received by the assessee, the assessee/AR could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A). We note that there were three changes in the jurisdiction of the First Appellate Authority after the assessee had filed the appeal. Even though we note that the assessee has not received any notice of hearing of the appeal, we per-se note that there is non-application of mind by the Ld. CIT(A), who at para 5 has observed that the impugned appeal is against the penalty order which is not the case. This appeal is against the scrutiny assessment passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act, which is a quantum appeal. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the assessee has not Nazima Mumtaz AY- 2007-08 received the notice of hearing and there is non-application of mind on the part of the Ld. CIT(A), we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeal.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order is pronounced in the open court on 3rd May, 2019