MANISH D. SAVANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

This appeal filed by the assessee on 21.11.2012 is against the order of the CIT (A)-2, Mumbai dated 25.11.2011 for the AY 2006-2007. In this appeal, assessee raised 6 grounds in toto.

Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee, who is a consultant, filed the return of income declaring the total income of Rs. 6,29,493/-. Assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act the assessed income was determined at Rs. 31,42,302/-. In the assessment, AO made various additions in the exparte assessment. Matter travelled to the first appellate authority. 3. During the proceedings before the first appellate authority, CIT (A) issued hearing notices on various dates (para 1 of the CIT (A) order is relevant in this regard) and assessee did not comply with the same. Eventually, CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee applying the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan (India) Pvt Ltd (38 ITD 320) (Del.). Aggrieved, assessee filed the present appeal before us.

During the proceedings before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the assessee is very much interested in pursuing the appeal. Referring to the said noticed, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is “change of address” of the assessee. Referring to the assessment order dated 30.12.2008 (it bears the address in Borivali (W), Mumbai) and Form No.36 (it bears the address of Dahisar (W), Mumbai), Ld Counsel for the assessee demonstrated the fact of change of address. Further, bringing our attention to various pages of the paper book dated 28.7.2015, Ld AR submitted that the assessee furnished various pages before the AO / CIT (A) and they were ignored while passing the impugned order. Ld Counsel for the assessee also brought our attention to the „additional evidence’ filed for the first time before us and requested orally for admitting the same.

Per contra, Ld DR for the Revenue opposed the arguments of the Ld Counsel for the assessee.

On hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the contents of the paper book (182 pages) filed before us, we find that there is some confusion in the postal address of the assessee. Prima facie, we find that the CIT (A) failed to pass the order as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. He is not expected to pass order relying on the decision in the case of Multiplan (India) Pvt Ltd (supra). As such, the AO also passed his order exparte. In effect, the orders passed by the CIT (A) / AO are not proper. Considering the above, we are of the view that the assessee cannot be stated to be uninterested in perusing the appeal. As such, there is finding of the CIT (A) on merits. Considering all the facts stated above, we are of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case properly. Thus, AO is directed to make fresh assessment after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the set