ACME VYAAPAAR PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

At the outset, the Ld. AR brought to our notice that the assessee was not in receipt of notices issued by both the authorities below namely, AO as well as Ld. CIT(A). For buttressing this fact the Ld. AR drew our attention to the address in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the new address of the assessee has been noted by Ld. CIT(A) at page 3 which is 32, Jahawar Lal Nehru Road, Room No. 1006, Om Towers, Kolkata-700 071 is found clearly mentioned as the new address of assessee. However, the address in which the assessee has been served notices were at the old address at Sakalat Place, Kolkata-700 072. It was brought to our notice that the address of the assessee was changed w.e.f. 02.04.2010 which is evident from the Form 18 of the Companies Act, 1956. It was also brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A) that the data base of the Income Tax Department was updated with the new address. However, according to the Ld. AR, the Ld. CIT(A)/Office of the First Appellate authority did not give due cognizance of the change of Acme Vyapaar P. Ltd., AY 2008-09 address and, therefore, the assessee was not put on notice about the hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) as well as that of the AO which resulted in AO passing best judgment assessment u/s. 144 of the Act citing old address. Therefore, it was prayed by the Ld. AR that since the assessee did not get proper opportunity for want of notice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate its case before the AO.

We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. From the facts narrated above, we find that the AO in the assessment order has taken note of the assessee’s old address at Sakalat Place, Kolkata-700072 whereas the new address of the assessee which was changed w.e.f. 02.04.2010 is 32, Jahawar Lal Nehru Road, Room No. 1006, Om Towers, Kolkata-700 071 which was duly reflected in the Form 18 of the Companies Act, 1956. It was even brought to our notice that the data base of the Income Tax Department was also updated with the new address. However, both the authorities below failed to appreciate this fact of change of address which resulted in notice being not served upon the assessee and thus there was a violation of natural justice. Since no proper opportunity of hearing has been provided to the assessee at the stage of assessment proceedings, we are inclined to remand for de-novo assessment back to AO. In a similar case, we note that the Hon’ble (three judge bench) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tin Box Company Vs. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC) has held as under:

In view of the aforesaid order and in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Tin Box Company (supra) and since the assessee did not get proper opportunity before the AO during re assessment proceedings, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of AO for de novo assessment and to decide the matter in accordance to law after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

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