VAMITA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, , BALOTRA
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 87/JODH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Feb 2021AY 2011-12
Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 87/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vamita Singh, Cuke Ito, Vs. C/O-Ashok Kumar Bansal, C.A., Ward-7(3) 2Nd Vijay Shanti Plaza, Near Jaipur. Railway Crossing, Balotra-344022. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Atzps 9372 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 20/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.
For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)
penalty under section 271(1)(b) was deleted.”
Since, in the present case, there is nothing on record which could suggest that required notices either U/s 143(2) or 142(1) of the Act were ever served upon the assessee, therefore, non-compliance on account of non- receipt of notice by the assessee could not be taken as intentional. Even
