IONA FRANCES FERGUSSON,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 35(1)(4), MUMBAI

Inspite of issue of notice, none appeared on behalf of the Assessee. From the perusal of the records, we find that the assessment was completed by the ITO, ward 54(3) of New Delhi and the appeal was disposed of by the Iona Frances Fergusson Ld.CIT (Appeals)-18, New Delhi. Before the Ld. CIT (Appeals), the Assessee submitted that she is staying in Mumbai in her permanent residence and application was filed with the Pr.CCIT Delhi for transfer of appeal to Mumbai. However, it appears that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) disposed off the appeal and the Assessee also did not appear before the Ld. CIT (Appeals) in person in the proceedings before him.

The Assessee in Form No.36 filed before us submitted that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer has been transferred from Delhi to Mumbai and now assessed with ITO Ward 35(1)(4), Mumbai and an order was passed by the Pr.CIT-18, New Delhi u/s 127(2) of the Act on 15.02.2016 to this effect. On perusal of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) order, we find that the Assessee could not appear before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) as she is staying in Mumbai and the proceedings are in Delhi. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) disposed off the appeal without hearing the Assessee. In the circumstances, we are of the view that this matter should go back to Ld. CIT (Appeals) and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) having jurisdiction over the present Assessing Officer i.e. ITO Wd 35(1)(4), Mumbai . Hence, we restore this appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) who shall decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.