IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH D KOLKATA [Before Hon ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM ] ITA No.857/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Pratush Patodia -versus- I.T.O., Ward-33(3), Kolkata Kolkata [PAN: AFKPP6757Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Appellant : Shri R.C.Jhawer, FCA For Respondent : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT Date of Hearing : 26.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2016. ORDER Per Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM captioned appeal filed by assessee pertaining to A.Y.2010-11, is directed against order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -9, Kolkata, in Appeal No.254/CIT(A)-9/Wd-33(3)/2014-15/Kol, dated 29.02.2016, which in turn arises out of order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, Act) dated 28.03.2013. 2. facts of case are stated in brief. return of income for A.Y.2010-11, was e-filed by assessee on 13.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs.10,02,187/-. return was processed u/s 143(1) of Act. Later on case was selected for scrutiny u/s 143(3) of Act and AO has completed assessment by making various additions. Aggrieved from order of ld. AO, assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A), who has also confirmed action of AO by observing followings :- In this case, notice U/s 250 was issued on 10/02/2015 by which date of hearing was fixed on 27/02/2015 however, neither anybody attended nor any written reply was received on date of hearing. Therefore, fresh notices dated 25/05/2015,02/11/2015,28/12/2015,18/01/2016 & 19/02/2016 respectively were issued 2 ITA No.857/Kol/2016 Pratush Patodia A..Y.2010-11 but there was no compliance on part of appellant. Since there is no compliance during appellant proceedings and there is no new fact/details available for consideration, I do not find any infirmity in AO s order. Therefore, appeal is dismissed. 3. Not being satisfied with order of ld. CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. Although in this appeal assessee has taken multiple grounds of appeal but at time of hearing grievance of assessee had been confined to only ground no.1 which relates to ex-parte order made by ld. CIT(A) without giving opportunity of hearing to assessee. ld. AR for assessee has stated that notice u/s 250 of Act was issued on assessee on dated 10.02.2015 by which date of hearing was fixed on 27.02.2015. assessee filed adjournment petition before ld. CIT(A) on dated 24.02.2015, seeking adjournment. ld. CIT(A) did not consider adjournment application of assessee. However, ld. CIT(A) issued fresh notices for hearings but none of them served on assessee. ld. AR for assessee has explained that in respect of fresh notices on various dates, such as 25.05.2015, 07.11.2015, 28.11.2015, 18.01.2016 and 19.02.2016 etc, for that assessee stated that he did not receive them. Had ssessee received these notices from income tax department, he would have presented before ld. CIT(A). Therefore order passed by ld. CIT(A) is in violation of natural justice and without giving opportunity to assessee of being heard. 5. On other hand, ld. Departmental Representative for revenue has primarily reiterated stand taken by AO and ld. CIT(A),which we have already noted in our earlier para, and is not being repeated for sake of brevity. ld. DR also submitted that after taking first adjournment assessee had nearly one year time but assessee did not approach ld. CIT(A) within that period to follow up matter from his side. Therefore ld CIT (A) considered it that assessee was not interested to pursue appeal, hence he was right in dismissing appeal. 3 ITA No.857/Kol/2016 Pratush Patodia A..Y.2010-11 6. Having heard rival submissions, perused material available on record , we are of view that there is merit in submissions of ld. AR for assessee , as propositions canvassed by ld. AR for assessee are supported by facts narrated above. As ld. AR for assessee has explained that assessee has filed adjournment application and took adjournment and after that assessed did not receive any notice from income tax department, in spite of this, ld. CIT(A) has passed order without giving opportunity of being heard to assessee. Therefore we are of view that assessee did not get sufficient opportunity of being heard. Hence, we are of view to remit issue back to file of ld. CIT(A) to decide case afresh after giving adequate opportunity to assessee of being heard. Therefore we set aside order of ld. CIT(A) and remit case back to file of ld. CIT(A) to decide case afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee, as discussed supra. 7. In result, all grounds of appeal of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 28.09.2016. Sd/- Sd/- [S.S.Viswanethra Ravi] [Dr.Arjun Lal Saini] Judicial Member Accountant Member Date: 28.09.2016. R.G.(.P.S.) Copy of order forwarded to: 1. Pratush Patodia, R.C.Jhawer & Co., 7A, Bentick Street, Kolkata-700001. 2 I.T.O., Ward-33(3), Kolkata. 3. C.I.T.(A)- 9, Kolkata 4. C.I.T., 11, Kolkata. 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. True Copy, By order, Deputy /Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata Benches 4 ITA No.857/Kol/2016 Pratush Patodia A..Y.2010-11 Pratush Patodia v. I.T.O., Ward-33(3), Kolkata