What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was due to non-service of notice at the correct address. Therefore, the order was set aside to provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity.

The assessee informed the CIT(A) about a change of address. However, the CIT(A) issued notices to the old address, which were not served. Consequently, the assessee could not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without proper service of notice to the assessee is valid.

Goria Raodways vs ITO | s.254 | ITAT Mumbai 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Kardam

Hearing: 09/05/2017Pronounced: 09/05/2017

आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by assessee against the ex-parte order passed by CIT(A)-28, Mumbai dated 18/10/2016 for the A.Y. 2008-09, in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.254 of the IT Act. 2. In this appeal, assessee is basically aggrieved for ex-parte order of CIT(A) which was passed without giving opportunity to the assessee. Our attention was invited by learned AR to the letter written to the CIT(A) with regard to change of address of the assessee which was duly acknowledged by the department. However, even after receipt of this letter, notice was served on the old address, therefore, on the date fixed M/s. Goriya Roadways for hearing, assessee or AR of the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) which led to the ex-parte order by CIT(A).

I have considered rival contentions and found that assessee vide its letter dated 18/05/2016 informed to the CIT(A) that its address has been changed to M/s. Goriya Roadways, 163/165, Sookina Manzil, 2nd Floor, Room No.38, Sahila Marg, Next to Chinch Bunder, Post Office Dongri, Mumbai – 400 009 in place of old address which was M/s. Goriya Roadways, 40/48, Price Bldg, (Abubakar Manzil), 3rd Floor, R.No.25, Jail Road, (East), Dongri, Charnuli, Mumbai – 400 009.

However, even after assessee informed to the CIT(A) regarding change of address, notice fixing the date of hearing on 14/10/2016 was issued to the old address which was returned back. As the notice could not be served for hearing before the CIT(A) on 14/10/2016, neither assessee nor AR could appear. In the interest of substantial justice, I set aside the ex- parte order of CIT(A) and the matter is restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding afresh as per law after giving due opportunity to the assessee.

GORIA RAODWAYS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(1)(5), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments