KHATEEB OMAIR AHMED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-4(1), CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ ायपीठ, चेई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ीजॉज जॉज के, उपा एवंी जगदीश, लेखा सद( के सम
BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2211/Chny/2025
िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2003-04

Khateeb Omair Ahmed,
62B, OHMS Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. PAN: AAHPU 4907D

Vs.
The Income Tax Officer,
Non Corporate Circle-4(1),
Chennai.

(अपीलाथ/Appellant)

( यथ/Respondent)

अपीलाथG की ओर से/ Appellant by :
Shri V. Arunachalesh, Advocate for Ms. G. Vardini Karthick, Advocate
IJथG की ओर से /Respondent by :
Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing
:
22.10.2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
28.10.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2003-04 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 20.06.2025. 2. The A.O has levied penalty of Rs. 3,18,102/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged concealment of income in respect of disallowance of deduction u/s. 80RR amounting to Rs. 10,09,850/-. Aggrieved by the Khateeb Omair Ahmed

:- 2 -:

same, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte as the assessee did not comply with the notices issued.
3. The Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. A.R) contended that the Ld. CIT(A) passed order ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity to substantiate his case. It was therefore submitted that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A).
4. The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. D.R) relied on the orders of the lower authorities and requested that the appeal be dismissed.
5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte as the assessee has not responded to the notices issued on 06.05.2025 and 03.06.2025. In our considered opinion, sufficient opportunity was not given to the assessee before confirming the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was imposed for alleged concealment of income arising out of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80RR of the Act. Therefore, keeping in view the principles
Khateeb Omair Ahmed

:- 3 -:

of natural justice, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to substantiate his case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details in support of his claim for fresh adjudication. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 28th day of October, 2025 at Chennai. (जॉज जॉज के)
(George George K)
उपा / Vice President
(जगदीश)
(Jagadish)
लेखा
लेखा
लेखा
लेखा सदय
सदय
सदय
सदय /Accountant Member
चेनई/Chennai, दनांक/Dated: 28th October, 2025. EDN, Sr. P.S
Khateeb Omair Ahmed

:- 4 -:

आदेश क ितिल प अ े षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ/Appellant
2.  थ/Respondent
3. आयकर आयु/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem
4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR
5. गाड फाईल/GF