VIJAY VIDYADHAR VIDWANS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), KALYAN, KALYAN

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH; MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2860/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Vijay Vidyadhar Vidwans Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), C-3/209, Palmacres CHSL, Kalyan Gavanpada, Mahatma Phule vs. 2ndFloor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Marg, Mulund East, Mumbai, Road, Kalyan, Thane, Maharashtra, 400081 Maharashtra, 400051.

PAN: ABVPV1481C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Ms. Tsering Majumder, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 08.07.2026 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M :

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 22.01.2026, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, wherein he has sustained the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’),

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessment in this case 2. was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, vide order dated 28.02.2024. Separately, penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act were initiated vide notice dated 28.02.2024. Thereafter, during the course of penalty proceedings, a fresh show cause dated 03.04.2024

ITA No. 2860/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2015-16 Vijay Vidyadhar Vidwans was issued. In response, there was no compliance from the assessee and thereafter, there were two letters issued to the assessee dated 25.04.2024 and 08.05.2024 and again, there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act, holding that the assessee has defaulted in non-compliance to the two notices issued u/s. 142(1) dated 17.08.2023 and 22.12.2023, and no reasonable cause has been shown for non-compliance and he was of the view that the assessee is liable for default and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for each such default was levied totaling to Rs. 20,000/-.

The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the ld. 3. CIT(A), wherein it was contended that the notices were not served by registered post or courier and were issued only through the income tax portal and electronic mode. The ld. CIT(A) held that the records clearly show that all the notices were issued through the income tax portal and delivered to the assessee’s registered e-mail ID and the assessee has not disputed the e-mail ID which was registered on the portal nor has any material been placed on record to show that such e-mail ID was invalid, inaccessible or wrongly recorded. It was accordingly held that there is no mandate under the Income Tax Act or the Faceless Assessment Scheme requiring the Assessing Officer to compulsorily served notices by registered post when electronic mode of service has been adopted in accordance with law and reference was drawn to the provisions of Section 282 of the Act. It was accordingly held by the ld CIT(A) that once the statute recognizes electronic service as a valid mode, non- service by physical post does not vitiate the proceedings. It was accordingly held that despite valid service of notices through the prescribed electronic mode, the assessee failed to respond or to comply to the said notices and in absence of reasonable cause, the penalty so

ITA No. 2860/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2015-16 Vijay Vidyadhar Vidwans levied was confirmed. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any adjournment 4. application filed. The ld. DR has been heard, who has relied on the order passed by the lower authorities.

We have carefully perused the order passed by the Assessing 5. Officer as well as by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has failed to demonstrate any reasonable cause for non-compliance to the notices so issued by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings which were duly served electronically on the assessee. We do not see any infirmity in the order so passed by the Assessing Officer which has been rightly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). In the result, the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(b) is hereby confirmed.

In the result, appeal so filed by the assessee is dismissed. 6.

Order pronounced on 08.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- PAWAN SINGH VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Mumbai, Dated: 08.07.2026 Karishma J. Pawar, SR. PS

Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file

ITA No. 2860/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2015-16 Vijay Vidyadhar Vidwans

By Order

Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai