HARAKCHAND G. PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

This appeal filed by the assessee on 20.5.2016 is against the order of the CIT (A)-44, Mumbai dated 18.3.2016 for the assessment year 2007-2008.

In this appeal, assessee raised six grounds in toto. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee briefly narrated the facts of the case and submitted that the assessment under consideration was finalized with grave mistakes with reference to the share of the assessee in the property, which is the subject matter of addition u/s 50C of the Act. Bringing my attention to the affidavit dated 12.5.2016, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT (A) decided the first appeal ex-parte basing on the fact that the notices were issued on 21.4.2015; 4.2.2016 and 01.03.2016. But the fact is that these notices were never served on the assessee. Based on the said affidavit, Ld Counsel for the assessee mentioned that the assessee moved his address to Vile Parle way back in the year 2010-2011. Considering the above, Ld Counsel for the assessee requested for remanding the matter to the file of the CIT (A) for fresh adjudication after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee after serving notice to the new address at Vile Parle (E).