SRI VINAYAGA BUILDERS AND HOMES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-6(3), CHENNAI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ यायपीठ, चे ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ी एबी टी. वक
, ाियक सद एवं
एवं
एवं
एवं
ी अिमताभ शुा, लेखा सद के सम
BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2105 & 2106/Chny/2025
िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: 2017-18
Sri Vinayaga Builders &
Homes Pvt. Ltd.,
No.18, Sri Ram Nivas,
Krishnamachari Street,
Radha Nagar, Chrompet,
Chennai-600 044. v.
The ITO,
Corporate Ward-6(3),
Chennai.
[PAN: AAMCS 5556 J]
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)
(यथ/Respondent)
अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by :
Mr.Suraj Nahar, CA
यथ क ओर से /Respondent by :
Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, IRS
सुनवाईकतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
23.09.2025
घोषणाकतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
24.10.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
ITA No.2105/Chny/2025 is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated
16.11.2023 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”)
2017-18 against the penalty levied u/s.271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act”). ITA No.2106/Chny/2025 is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated
ITA Nos.2105 & 2106/Chny/2025
(AY 2017-18)
Sri Vinayaga Builders & Homes Pvt. Ltd.
:: 2 ::
11.2023 for AY 2017-18 for confirming the penalty passed u/s.271A of the Act.
At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that in both the cases, the Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex parte orders. In this regard, it is noted that the assessee didn’t respond to the Ld.CIT(A)’s various notices which led him to pass the impugned orders ex parte qua the assessee. In this context, the Ld.AR explained the reason for assessee not responding to his notices and brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) had issued notices to a wrong e-mail ID i.e. itclinets_rsa_2015@yahoo.co.in instead of the right one shown in the Form No.35 i.e. magarajyothiservices@gamil.com. Therefore, submitted that assessee can’t be faulted for not responding to his notices pleaded that assessee should be given one more opportunity to contest the penalties levied before the First Appellate Authority.
Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee. 4. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty levied u/s.271B of the Act & u/s.271A of the Act by passing ex parte orders. The Ld.CIT(A) is ITA Nos.2105 & 2106/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Sri Vinayaga Builders & Homes Pvt. Ltd.
:: 3 ::
noted to have passed the ex parte orders on the ground that the assessee didn’t respond to his several notices. In this regard, it was brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has issued notices to a wrong e-mail ID and not to the e-mail ID provided by the assessee in Form No.35. In such a scenario, the assessee can’t be faulted for not responding to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, there is per-se violation of natural justice and therefore, we set aside the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore both the appeals back to his file with a direction to issue notice to the e-mail ID shown in Form No.35 and the assessee is directed to participate in the penalty proceedings without fail and the Ld.CIT(A) to pass orders in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.
5. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 24th day of October, 2025, in Chennai. (अिमताभ शुा)
(AMITABH SHUKLA)
लेखा सदय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (एबी टी. वक
)
(ABY T. VARKEY)
याियक सदय/JUDICIAL MEMBER
चे ई/Chennai,
!दनांक/Dated: 24th October, 2025. TLN
आदेश क ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ /Appellant
2. थ /Respondent
3. आयकरआयु/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore.
ITA Nos.2105 & 2106/Chny/2025
(AY 2017-18)
Sri Vinayaga Builders & Homes Pvt. Ltd.
:: 4 ::
िवभागीयितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF