IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.6988/M/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-2007) Mr. Manish D. Savant, ITO-11(3)(1), Gurudatta, Atmaram Mhatre R.No.447, 4 th Floor, Vs. Road, Dahisar (W), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai 400 068. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020. PAN : AGVPS7796L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri B.V. Jhaveri Respondent by : Miss Anupama Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 06.9.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 28 .09.2016 ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal filed by assessee on 21.11.2012 is against order of CIT (A)-2, Mumbai dated 25.11.2011 for AY 2006-2007. In this appeal, assessee raised 6 grounds in toto. 2. Briefly stated relevant facts of case are that assessee, who is consultant, filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,29,493/-. Assessment was completed u/s 144 of Act assessed income was determined at Rs. 31,42,302/-. In assessment, AO made various additions in exparte assessment. Matter travelled to first appellate authority. 3. During proceedings before first appellate authority, CIT (A) issued hearing notices on various dates (para 1 of CIT (A) order is relevant in this regard) and assessee did not comply with same. Eventually, CIT (A) dismissed appeal 2 of assessee applying decision of Delhi Bench of Tribunal in case of Multiplan (India) Pvt Ltd (38 ITD 320) (Del.). Aggrieved, assessee filed present appeal before us. 4. During proceedings before us, Ld Counsel for assessee pleaded that assessee is very much interested in pursuing appeal. Referring to said noticed, Ld Counsel for assessee submitted that there is change of address of assessee. Referring to assessment order dated 30.12.2008 (it bears address in Borivali (W), Mumbai) and Form No.36 (it bears address of Dahisar (W), Mumbai), Ld Counsel for assessee demonstrated fact of change of address. Further, bringing our attention to various pages of paper book dated 28.7.2015, Ld AR submitted that assessee furnished various pages before AO / CIT (A) and they were ignored while passing impugned order. Ld Counsel for assessee also brought our attention to additional evidence filed for first time before us and requested orally for admitting same. 5. Per contra, Ld DR for Revenue opposed arguments of Ld Counsel for assessee. 6. On hearing both parties and on perusal of orders of Revenue Authorities as well as contents of paper book (182 pages) filed before us, we find that there is some confusion in postal address of assessee. Prima facie, we find that CIT (A) failed to pass order as per provisions of section 250(6) of Act. He is not expected to pass order relying on decision in case of Multiplan (India) Pvt Ltd (supra). As such, AO also passed his order exparte. In effect, orders passed by CIT (A) / AO are not proper. Considering above, we are of view that assessee cannot be stated to be uninterested in perusing appeal. As such, there is finding of CIT (A) on merits. Considering all facts stated above, we are of view that one more opportunity be given to assessee to represent his case properly. Thus, AO is directed to make fresh assessment after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee as per set 3 principles of natural justice. Further, assessee is directed to attend to assessment proceedings regularly and punctually as affirmed by Ld AR before us. With these comments, we remand issues raised in grounds to file of AO. Accordingly, all grounds raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In result, appeal of assesseee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 28th September, 2016. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; 28.09.2016 Sr. PS Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent. 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5 DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) , ITAT, Mumbai Manish D. Savant v. ITO-11(3)(1), Mumbai