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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2211/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 October 2025AY 2003-04Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2003-04 after the CIT(A) dismissed their appeal ex-parte for non-compliance with notices. The AO had levied a penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 80RR

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 22.10.2025Pronounced: 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 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 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.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →