ROZANA CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPER,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 49(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 193/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 July 2017AY 2005-063 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the assessee's rights were not determined due to the ex parte order. Therefore, the matter needs to be adjudicated afresh by the CIT(A) after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not receive the notice of hearing from the CIT(A) due to a change in address. Consequently, the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without the assessee's participation. The assessee's current address differs from the one used in the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) is valid when the assessee did not receive the notice due to a change of address. The need for a fresh adjudication to ensure natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254,Section 263,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Respondent: Shri Nicholas Murmu, JCIT
Hearing: 14/06/2017

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2005-06, is directed against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-15, Kolkata, in Appeal No. 182/CIT(A)-15/14-15/Wd-49(4)/Kol, dated 10.03.2016, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the AO u/s referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 12.03.2014.

2.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted before us that the assessee could not get the notice of hearing from the Ld. CIT(A) because there was a change of address i.e. the notice of the Ld. CIT(A) could not be served on the assessee because of change of communication address. The present address of the assessee which is mentioned in Form No. 36 is as under:

M/s Rozana Construction & Developer, c/o Shri IshakMallick, KaikhaliMandalganthi (Biswas Para), P.S.-Baguiati, P.O.-Airport, Kolkata-700052.

Whereas the address mentioned in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) reads as follows:

M/s Rozana Construction & Developer, GH/10, Jyangra, Nabapalluy, Baguiati, Kolkata-700059.

Therefore, because of change in address of communication the assessee could not get the notice of hearing from the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex parte. Therefore, considering the factual position and principle of natural justice, we are of the view that the rights and duties of the assessee were not determined by the Ld. CIT(A), because of the reason, the assessee did not attend hearing and as a result, the Ld. CIT(A) passed the ex be adjudicated afresh by the Ld. CIT(A),hence, we remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, we allow this appeal for statistical purposes.

3.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 07/ 07/2017.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →