Jagjivandas Nandlal vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court)

ITAT President requested to make it compulsory for assessees to amend Form 36 for change of address instead of merely intimating vide letter

The assessee claimed that it had filed a letter before the Tribunal pointing out that it had changed its address and that notice of hearing should be sent to the new address. However, the Tribunal sent a notice to the old address mentioned in Form No. 36. As the assessee did not appear for the hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal (following Multiplan 38 ITD 320 (Del)) with the finding the “the RPAD notice has not been returned” by the postal authorities. The assessee filed a MA in which it pointed out that the notice had been returned by the postal authorities with the endorsement “Not found at given address. Returned to Sender” and pleaded for recall of the ex-parte dismissal order. However, the Tribunal dismissed the MA as well. The assessee challenged the dismissal by a Writ Petition. HELD upholding the challenge:

(i) Without going into the question whether the assessee had intimated the Tribunal about the change of address or not, the Tribunal’s order that the notice had not been returned by the postal authorities is factually wrong in view of the fact that the notice was returned to the Tribunal with the endorsement “Not found at given address”. The notice sent by R.P.A.D. was not served but was returned for want of correct address. The Tribunal could not have treated the service by R.P.A.D. as good service. It ought to have issued fresh notice to the assessee / his advocate and could not have decided ex-parte;

(ii) It is noticed in a number of cases that parties are entering into correspondence with the registry of the Tribunal to intimate the change of address without amending the address given in column 10 of Form No.36 or in the cause title of the appeal memo. In most cases, the change of address is not taken on record with the result that the assessee does not get notice of hearing and the appeal is heard behind the back of the assessee. This generates litigation. To avoid this situation, it is desirable to direct the parties to amend Form No.36 instead of writing letters to the Registrar;

(iii) Accordingly, the President of the Tribunal is requested either to frame rule or issue practice note making it clear that in the event of change of address there should be amendment to the cause title of the memo of appeal followed by amendment to Form No.36 with further reiteration that any correspondence in this behalf shall not be entertained by the Tribunal. If the procedure suggested is adopted, then the parties before the Tribunal would be compelled to amend their memo of appeal or cross objections and Form No.36 so that the Tribunal can make due service of notice and avoid ex-parte hearing and challenge thereto. We hope the Tribunal shall take note of anxiety expressed by this Court and inform this Court the compliance of this order.