K.K.OIL TRADING CO. MUMBAI vs ACIT.,-24(2) MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri D.

Manmohan, Vice President and Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Accountant Member ITA No.

3486/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03) M/s.

K.K.

Oil Trading Co.

A C I T - 24(2) 2, Hariram Arcade, S.V.

Road & Bandra Kurla Complex Marve Road Junction Vs.

Mumbai 400051 Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 PAN - AAEFK 6963 A Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Mayur R.

Makadia Respondent by: Shri C.G.K.

Nair Date of Hearing: 28.02.2012 Date of Pronouncement: 28.02.2012 O R D E R Per D.

Manmohan, V.P.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.05.2009 passed by the CIT(A) XXIV, Mumbai.

2.

An appeal was filed on 24.01.2008 before the CIT(A), aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer.

It appears that there was change of address of the assessee and the same was intimated to the learned Commissioner vide letter dated 21.02.2008.

The address as furnished to the learned CIT(A) in Form No.

35 was 5/6, Maharsh Apartments, Opp.

Telephone Exchange, S.V.

Road, Malad (W), Mumbai 400064.

The new address of the assessee is “2, Hariram Arcade, S.V.

Road & Marve Road Junction, Malad (W), Mumbai 400064”.

The learned Commissioner, however, appears to have sent the notice by RPAD to the old adress and since no material was furnsihed to support the contentions urged by assessee on merits, the appeal by the assessee was dismissed.

3.

Aggrieved by the exparte order assessee preferred an appeal contending, inter alia, that the learned CIT(A) erred in passing exparte order without giving proper opportunity of being heard.

It was further contended ITA No.

3486/Mum/2011 M/s.

2 that the learned CIT(A) erred in serving the notice at the old adress without appreciating the fact that the assessee firm initmated the change of address on 21.02.2008.

4.

At the time of hearing the learned D.R. could not place any material to controvert the plea raised on behalf of the assessee firm. ssee firm.

In other words, the claim of the assessee that change of address was intimated to the learned CIT(A) is not controverted.

Under these circumstances we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal exparte, without giving the assessee firm reasonable opportunity of being heard.

In the interests of substantial justice, as declared in the open court, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to him to reconsider the matter on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of bearing heard.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28th February 2012.

Sd/- Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Billaiya) (D.

Manmohan) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai, Dated: 28th February 2012 Copy to: 1.

The Appellant 2.

The Respondent 3.

The CIT(A) – XXIV, Mumbai 4.

The CIT– XXIV, Mumbai City 5.

The DR, “A“ Bench, ITAT, Mumbai By Order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai n.p.