M/S PODDAR DEWKI LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The only issue in this appeal is to be decided as to whether the CIT-A justified in passing the ex-parte order without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The assessee is a company and deriving its income from house property. The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income at NIL through online on 30-09-2009. Subsequently, under scrutiny notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. In response to which the assessee represented its case through it’s AR. The AR of the assessee filed documents to explain the return of income. The AO determined the total

Aggrieved by such order of the AO, the assessee challenged the same before the CIT-A. According to the CIT-A, the first notice was issued to the assessee on 11/12/2015 fixing the date of hearing on 21/12/2015. But the said notice was returned with an endorsement ‘unknown’. Again another notice dated 10/03/2016 was sent to the assessee fixing the hearing on 31- 03-2016, which was again returned with same endorsement ‘unknown ‘. Likewise the CIT-A issued another notice dated 01/04/2016, which was also retuned with the same endorsement ‘unknown ‘. The CIT-A was of the view that all the said three notices were sent to the address as given by the assessee in form no.35 and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non appearance before him by passing an ex-parte order.

Aggrieved by such ex-parte order of the CIT-A, now the assessee is in appeal before us.

The ld. AR submits that the office of assessee is located in a huge building. It is a mistake of assessee in not mentioning the room no. in which assessee’s office is located. To that effect an affidavit dated 24-10-2016 was filed, wherein the assessee stated non service of notice and offered an undertaking to prosecute its case before the CIT-A, if an opportunity is given.

The ld.DR submits that the CIT-A has afforded ample opportunities to the assessee. The impugned order of the CIT-A suggests itself that the CIT- A has issued three notices to the assessee and the all notices were returned unserved with the same endorsement ‘unknown ‘. The Ld. DR further submits that the CIT-A issued notices to assessee’s address as provided by the assessee in the original assessment proceedings and in the appellate proceedings and urged to dismiss the appeal of assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as stated above. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th November, 2016