9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to the wrong address due to which the postal authorities could not deliver the document. A confirmation letter from the Postmaster of returning the speed post has been filed. Notice u/s 148 was served through affixture which was never received by the assessee as the address was not correct. AO kept an issuing notices on the wrong address even when the first notice was not served due to wrong ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee feeling aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A)-2, Jalandhar dated 24.09.2019 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed penalty u/s 271(1)(b), by saying that no compliance was made by assessee to notice by A.O. served u/s 142(1) by affixture, as no affixture of notice u/s 142(1) was ever done by A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued referring to paper book dated 01.12.2021 containing 28 pages and also submitted that assessee was not served with the notice, Copy of certificate of Postamaster also filed before the lower authorities. It was also stated that assessee has not intentionally avoided to appear before Ld. AO. Prayer made to delete the penalty. 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR supporting the order of Ld. CIT(A) and b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these series of facts shows that there was a mis-communication at the end of the Assessing Officer about the address and also not mentioning the husband s name of the assessee which resulted in non serving of the notice since she resided in village. Under these given facts and circumstances, we find no justification in the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in initiating and levying penalty u/s 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
