PRATAP L AGNANI, MUMBAI v. ITO 16(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 377/MUM/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 37719914 RSA 2010
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 377/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant PRATAP L AGNANI, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 16(3)(3), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-12-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 10-12-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 01-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 01-12-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 15-01-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL AM AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO JM ITA NO.377/MUM/2010 : ASST.YEAR 2005-2006 SHRI PRATAP L.AGNANI 2/17 NIRMAL JEEVAN CO.OP.HSG.SOCIETY KOPRI THANE EAST. PA NO.ADPPA7685P. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 16(3)(3) MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUMEET KUMAR O R D E R PER R.S.SYAL AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON 27.04.2009 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE RELEVAN T MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S.144 SINCE NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SAME THING HAPPENED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED ASSESSEES APPEAL BY APPLYING THE DECISION OF THE I TAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P.) LTD. [(1991) 38 ITD 32 0] . 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS E XPLAINED THAT THERE WAS CHANGE IN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS NOT PROPERLY LOOK ED INTO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS REGARDS NON-APPEARANCE BEFORE THE LEARN ED CIT(A) THE LEARNED A.R. INVITED OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS LAST COLUMN OF FORM NO.35 WHICH INDICATED THE `ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES MAY BE SENT TO THE APPELL ANT AS 2/17 NIRMAL JEEVAN CO-OP. HSG. SOCIETY KOPRI THANE EAST. HOWEVER IN THE FIRST COLUMN THE ADDRESS HAS BEEN INDICATED AS S.K.ARYAMANE BUILDING SVP RO AD MUMBAI 400 004. ITA NO.377/MUM/2010 SHRI PRATAP L.AGNANI. 2 4. FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS NOTED THAT THE NOTICES WERE SENT AT THE EARLIER ADDRESS AND TH E ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO.35 IN THE LAST COLUMN WAS NOT TAKEN CARE OF . UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT WOULD BE J UST AND FAIR IF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO TH E FILE OF A.O. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND DIRECT HIM TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2010. SD/- SD/- ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) ( R.S.SYAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI : 10 TH DECEMBER 2010. DEVDAS* COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) - XVII MUMBAI. 5. THE DR/ITAT MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI.