GIRDHARILAL BHARTIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 565/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 August 2017AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be penalized for not receiving notices due to a change of address. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not receive notices from the CIT(A) due to a change in communication address, leading to an ex parte order. The assessee requested a remand to present their case properly.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to non-receipt of notices by the assessee is sustainable. Whether the principles of natural justice require a fresh hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate
Hearing: 04/08/2017Pronounced: 30/08/2017

O R D E R

Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2011-12, is directed against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata, in Appeal No.487/CIT(A)-13/2014-15/Kol, dated 08.03.2016, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the AO u/s.147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 29.03.2014.

2.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order stating that the notices, which were sent to the assessee had been returned back by the postal Girdharilal Bhartia Assessment Year: 2011-12 authorities. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee did not get the notices from ld. CIT(A), because of change in the communication address. The communication address mentioned in the order of the ld. CIT(A) was as follows: Girdharilal Bhartiya C/o. Ghanshyam International 158, J. L. Bajaj Street Keshoram Katra Kolkata – 700 007. Whereas new address of communication stated by the assessee in Form No.36 reads as under: Girdharilal Bhartiya 126, N. M. Joshi Marg, Mathurdas Mill Compound, C D House, Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400013. Due to change of communication address, the assessee did not get any notice of hearing from the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he could not attend the hearing. The Ld. CIT(A) passed the ex parte order stating the following: “3. In this case notice u/s.250 of the I.T Act, 1961 was sent to the appellant fixing hearing on 06.08.2015, 07.12.2015, 15.01.2016 & 23.02.2016. However, there was no compliance on the part of the appellant. These notices sent by Registered Post but have been returned back by the postal authorities. Further, the appellant has not intimated any new address. In light of these facts the appeal is decided ex parte.” 4. Perusal of grounds of appeal shows that the stand taken by the appellants are already considered by the Assessing Officer. The appellant has not brought on record any material in support of his contention. Therefore, after careful perusal of the assessment order, I am of the view that the Assessing Officer has correctly made addition and I confirm the order of the Assessing Officer. Hence, all the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” Page | 2

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →