SHANMUGAVEL SUDARARAJAN,DINDIGUL vs. ITO, WARD-1, , DINDIGUL

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’
यायपीठ, चे ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

ी मनु कुमार िग र, ाियक सद एवं

ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद के सम

BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2327/Chny/2025
िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: 2018-19
Shanmugavel Sundararajan,
27, Mounspuram,
3rd Lane,
Dindigul-624 001. v.
The ITO,
Ward-1,
Dindigul.
[PAN: BTRPS 8441 N]

(अपीलाथ/Appellant)

(यथ/Respondent)

अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by :
None
यथ क ओर से /Respondent by :
Mr. Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT
सुनवाईकतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
23.10.2025
घोषणाकतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
27.10.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [CIT(A)] dated
24.06.2025 for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the AO levied penalty u/s 271D of the Act for the contravention of section 269SS of the Act as the assessee had sold immoveable property for the value of Rs.14 lakhs and received the entire sale consideration in cash. Aggrieved by the penalty u/s 271D,
Shanmugavel Sundararajan

:: 2 ::

the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, before the ld.CIT(A), assessee didn’t appear, hence the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-prate confirming the penalty u/s 271D of the Act. Now, assessee is further in appeal before us.
3. Before us also none appeared for the assessee despite service of notice for hearing. The Ld. Addl. CIT-DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the assessee is habitual defaulter in prosecuting the case. He further argued that no explanation has been given by the assessee for the contravention of section 269SS of the Act.
4. We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and submission addressed by the ld. Departmental Representative. We are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, assessee should be given one more opportunity before the ld.CIT(A) to plead and file all relevant evidences/documents to prosecute its appeal. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid factual position, we deem it fit to set aside the appeal to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of appeal on merits. The Ld.CIT(A) who shall proceed for de novo adjudication of appeal after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee as per law. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail. We make it clear that if assessee again fails to prosecute the penalty appeal before the ld.CIT(A), the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) will prevail and no leniency will be given to the assessee.
Shanmugavel Sundararajan

:: 3 ::

Order pronounced on the 27th day of October, 2025, in Chennai. (एस. आर. रघुनाथा)
(S.R.RAGHUNATHA)
लेखा सदय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (मनु कुमार िग र)
(MANU KUMAR GIRI)
याियक सदय/JUDICIAL MEMBER

चे ई/Chennai,
!दनांक/Dated: 27th October, 2025. TLN

आदेश क ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: