M/S. UTSAV FASHION PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT-IT-2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

At the outset, we find that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-22 is ex parte. History of the appeal is that appeal was instituted by assessee before Ld. CIT(A)-VI. Later because of restructuring in the jurisdiction of CIT(A), the appeal was transferred by the department to Ld. CIT(A)-2. Meanwhile, the assessee’s address got changed. The new address as per Form 36 is “12th floor, DN 51, Merlin Infinite, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 091, West Bengal” which was duly informed by assessee to the office of Ld. CIT(A)-2. However, the appeal was transferred again by the department to Ld. CIT(A)-22 on 06.01.2015 and the Ld. AR of the assessee was not aware of it. The Ld. CIT(A)-22 not aware of the change in address of the assessee, sent the notices of hearing to old address, so, assessee did not come to know of listing of appeal for hearing and resultantly could not attend hearing, which led to the ex parte decision of Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we note that since the assessee did not receive the notices of hearing fixed before Ld. CIT(A)-22, because of change of address, which the assessee had informed Ld. CIT(A)-2 [the earlier Ld. CIT(A)] so the assessee cannot be faulted on this count. When the appeal was transferred by the department internally from Ld. CIT(A)-2 to Ld. CIT(A)-22, the assessee should have been notified/informed by Ld. CIT(A)-2 or Ld. CIT(A)-22 in the new/changed address. In any case, the office of the Ld. CIT-2 should have incorporated the new changed address in the file of assessee to facilitate the Ld. CIT-22 to issue notices in the assessee’s new changed address, which unfortunately has not happened in this case. Since it is an ex parte order and there is per se violation of natural justice, therefore, for interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeals back to his file for fresh adjudication as per law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 25.05.2018 Sd/- Sd/- (M. Balaganesh) (Aby. T. Varkey) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 25th May, 2018 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: Appellant – M/s. Utsav Fashion Private Limited, 12th floor, DN 51, 1. Merlin Infinite, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 091, West Bengal. Respondent – DCIT (IT)-2(1), Kolkata. 2 3. The CIT(A) Kolkata.