SAMIR RAMLAL TOPIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(3)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is barred by limitation by 3 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the bench to condone the delay. I heard the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the submissions made in the petition, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.

The Ld A.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) has passed order ex-parte, without hearing the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by him. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has since shifted his office and the notices have been issued by Ld CIT(A) to the 2 Shri Samir Ramlal Topiwala old address. Hence the assessee could not appear before him. The Ld A.R submitted that the non-appearance was on account of a reasonable cause and accordingly prayed for restoration of all the issues to the file of Ld CIT(A) for adjudicating them afresh after hearing the assessee.

The Ld D.R did not object to the plea put forth by Ld A.R.

Having regard to the rival submissions, I am of the view that there is merit in the prayer of the assessee. I, accordingly, set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and restore all the matters to his file for adjudicating all the matters afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to intimate his new address to ld CIT(A) in order to enable him to issue notice to the new address.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 19.9.2017.