RANJIT PAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 32(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2013-14, is directed against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-9, Kolkata, in Appeal No. 62/CIT(A)-9/Wd-32(4)/2016-17/Kol, dated 29.09.2016, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 28.03.2016.

Brief facts qua the assessee are that the assessee is an individual and running his construction business in the name and style of M/s Alliance. The assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2013-14 on 31.03.2014 declaring taxable income of Rs. 1,13,140/-. The return of income of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) on 2 Ranjit Pal 08.06.2014. Subsequently, the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny u/s 143(2) and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making various additions.

Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who has passed the ex parte order, without presence of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) sent several notices for hearing but neither the assessee nor his authorized representative appeared before the Ld. CIT(A) therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer.

Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee did not get notices of hearing from the Ld. CIT(A) because of change of address of communication. The communication address return in the Form No. 35 reads as under: Ranjit Pal, 10 D, Orient Row, Kolkata-700017. Whereas the address mentioned in Form No. 36 reads as under: Ranjit Pal, 33/1, N.S. Road, 6th Floor, Room No. 629, Kolkata- 700001. Therefore, because of change of address of communication, the assessee did not get the notices of hearing from the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, he could not appear before him. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench to send the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Even the Ld. DR for Revenue did not controvert the view expressed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee for sending the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh.

We have heard both the parties perused the material available on record, we notice that assessee did not get the notices for hearing from the ld CIT(A) because of change in address of communication, therefore, we are of the view that considering the principle of natural justice and fair play we remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the 3 Ranjit Pal issue afresh after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, we allow this appeal for statistical purposes. 6. 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. Sd/- Sd/- (A.T. VARKEY) (DR. A.L.SAINI) �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कोलकाता/Kolkata; �दनांक Dated 07/ 07/2017. SB, Sr.PS.