Shri Sanjayan Pallath, Nerul V. ITO3(4), Indore

ITA 216/Ind/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9636 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147; 271(1)(c); 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 216 & 217/Ind/2020 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sanjayan Uprayil Pallath A-204, Shanti Vaibhav CHS, Plot No.11A, Sector 42A, Seawoods, Nerul, Maharashtra - 400706 Vs. Income Tax Officer – 3(4) Indore PAN No.ASIPP6092M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ranjan Agrawal, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R. Date of Hearing 26.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 29.09.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH: The instant two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders both dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Indore (in short ‘CIT(A)’), arising out of the quantum order dated 15.12.2018 and penalty order dated 07.06.2019; passed by the Income Tax Officer-3(4), Indore under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax ITA Nos. 216 & 217/Ind/2020 (Shri Sanjyan PaLLath vs. ITO) Asst.Years.– 2011-12 - 2 - Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) & 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Years 2011-12. 2. We have heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. 3. It appears that the notice was served by the Ld.AO to the address available with him. However, the assessee by that time already shifted to Mumbai and ultimately, since none appeared on behalf of the assessee, addition was made, which was, in turn, confirmed by the first appellate authority. It appears from the records and also submitted by the Ld.AR admittedly, the notice could not reach the assessee and addition was made accordingly. 4. Since, the issue remained unaddressed on merit by the authorities below, for the ends of justice, we are setting aside the same to the file of the Ld.AO to decide the same afresh upon affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee choose to file at the time of hearing of this matter. Thus, asseessee’s appeal is, therefore, allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, assessee’s quantum appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos. 216 & 217/Ind/2020 (Shri Sanjyan PaLLath vs. ITO) Asst.Years.– 2011-12 - 3 - 6. In view of the order passed in ITA No.216/Ind/2020, the penalty proceedings becomes infructuous and thus ITA No.217/Ind/2020 dismissed as infructuous. 7. In the combined result, quantum appeal in ITA No.216/Ind/2020 is allowed for statistical purposes and penalty appeal in ITA No.217/Ind/2020 is dismissed as infructuous. This Order pronounced on 29 /09/2022 Sd/- Sd/- (BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Indore; Dated 29/09/2022 S. K. Sinha, Sr. PS True Copy आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुᲦ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुᲦ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, / DR, ITAT, Indore 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Indore