PRABHA VIKRAM SINHA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(3), MUMBAI

In this appeal, the first and the foremost plea of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal of the assessee ex parte without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In brief, the relevant facts are that assessee is an individual whose return of income for Assessment Year 2011-12 was subject to scrutiny assessment whereby the total income was assessed at Rs.1,22,65,815/- as against the returned income of Rs.16,96,410/-. In the scrutiny assessment, various additions were made to the returned income, which were challenged in appeal before the CIT(A). CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal, as according to him, assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal because nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of issuance of notice of hearing and even on merits he has upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on all issues.

Before us, the plea of the assessee is that CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without allowing appropriate opportunity to the assessee. It was pointed out that CIT(A) issued the notice of hearing only once, as can be seen from para 1 of the order, but due to change of address it could not reach the assessee. The learned representative pointed out that the assessee was very much interested in prosecuting the appeal before the CIT(A). At the time of hearing, learned representative also referred to the detailed statement of facts, which was annexed to the appeal filed before the CIT(A), and contended that the appeal of assessee has been unjustly dismissed. It was also submitted that assessee would be satisfied for the present, if the appeal is restored back to the file of CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has not controverted the factual matrix brought out by the learned representative for the assessee and has also not opposed the plea for remanding the matter back to the file of the CIT(A).

We have carefully considered the rival submissions. No doubt, CIT(A) had issued a notice of hearing, which was not responded by the assessee, but it appears from record that the CIT(A) issued a single notice and thereafter no effort was made either through the Assessing Officer or otherwise to obtain the changed address of the assessee. We are conscious that the primary duty was of the assessee to have informed the CIT(A) about any change of address. Be that as it may, in the interest of justice and fair play, it would be appropriate that the matter is restored back to the file of CIT(A) who shall re-adjudicate the Grounds raised by the assessee before him after allowing assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and as per law. Therefore, without going into the merits of the various issues raised by the assessee before CIT(A), we set-aside the impugned order and restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh as per law as per our aforesaid directions.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above.