SHRI SANJYAN PATTATH,NERUL vs. ITO3(4), INDORE

We have heard the parties and perused the materials available on record.

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.

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.

In the result, assessee’s quantum appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. & 217/Ind/2020 (Shri Sanjyan PaLLath vs. ITO) Asst.Years.– 2011-12 - 3 -

In view of the order passed in the penalty proceedings becomes infructuous and thus dismissed as infructuous.

In the combined result, quantum appeal in is allowed for statistical purposes and penalty appeal in is dismissed as infructuous.