GIRISH CHAND AGARWAL ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 46(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

At the outset itself, the Ld. AR brought to our notice that though in the Form 35 filed before the Ld. CIT(A), the address to which notice has to be sent was specifically stated to be “D-5A, Vandana Apartment, Meera Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur-302016”, no notice was received in the said address which must have prompted the Ld. CIT(A) to note that none appeared before him despite notice. Since ex parte order has been passed without hearing the assessee, it was prayed that the assessee should be given an opportunity to effectively participate before the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings. We note that the assessee in the form 35 filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and in form no. 36 filed before us have specifically given the address to which the notice has to be sent is the Jaipur address (supra). We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex parte order taking note that the assessee has not cared to appear before him. Since the assessee has not received the notice, in the address given at Jaipur, there is a violation of natural justice. Since the impugned order is an ex parte order and the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the question of facts and law raised by the assessee, we

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