IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-3 NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-2744/Del/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2004-05) Philco Engineers Pvt.Ltd., vs ITO, F-27, 1 st Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Ward-14(2), Phase-I, New Delhi-110020. New Delhi. PAN-AAACP0640C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by None Respondent by Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 21.07.2016 Date of Pronouncement 17.10.2016 ORDER present appeal has been filed by assessee assailing correctness of order dated 03.02.2014 of CIT(A)-xvii, Delhi pertaining to 2004-05 assessment year on various grounds. Although, at time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of assessee. However, considering material available on record, it was considered appropriate to proceed with present appeal ex-parte qua assessee appellant on merit after hearing Ld.Sr.DR. 1.1. following grounds have been raised by assessee in present appeal:- 1. learned CIT(A) erred in law in upholding issuance of notice u/s 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 as valid. 2. learned CIT(A) erred in law in upholding reopening of completed assessment u/s 143(3) after 4 year as valid, in spite of fact that there wasn t any failure on part of assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts required for completing assessment. 3. learned CIT(A) erred in law in upholding disallowance of commission paid to foreign agent amounting to Rs.8,77,117/- u/s 40(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961. I.T.A .No.-2744/Del/2015 2. relevant facts of case are that assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 08.12.2006 wherein assessment was concluded at income of at Rs.8,25,273/- was re-opened vide order dated 13.12.2011 wherein by order u/s 144/147 concluded assessment at Rs.17,02,390/-. 2.1. assessee assailed ex-parte order on jurisdiction as well as on merits before CIT(A). CIT(A) in page 3 & 4 records that opportunities granted to assessee were not availed as assessee failed to attend. In these circumstances, appeal of assessee was dismissed. However, perusal of para 6.4 at page 7 of impugned order also records that assessee had filed additional evidences and considering Remand Report of AO, appeal was dismissed. Considering glaring factual contradiction in page 3 & 7 of impugned order wherein firstly, CIT(A) records that assessee was not present on any of days. Thereafter he records that additional evidence was filed and assessee stated his version of facts. In face of contradiction, it is deemed appropriate to set aside order and restore issue back to AO which was request of Ld. Sr. DR who submitted that since assessment order itself is u/s 144. In these circumstances, AO would be appropriate authority to address issues which may need consideration. 3. It is hoped that opportunity so provided is not abused by assessee as failing which AO would be at liberty to pass speaking order in accordance with law after giving assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3.1. From perusal of record, it is seen that address mentioned in impugned order is as under:- M/s. Philco Engineers (P.) Ltd., A-4, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020. Page 2 of 3 I.T.A .No.-2744/Del/2015 3.2. assessee on other hand has mentioned following address in Column No.10 before ITAT:- Philco Engineers Pvt.Ltd., F-27, 1st Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020. 3.3. In circumstances, AO is directed to send notice to latest address provided by assessee to ensure compliance. 4. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.. order is pronounced in open court on 17th October, 2016. Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *Amit Kumar* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Page 3 of 3 Philco Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, Ward-14(2), New Delhi