SRI VINAYAGA BUILDERS AND HOMES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORP. WARD-6(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2106/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 October 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that notices were sent to a wrong email ID, which was a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the ex parte orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after issuing proper notice.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against penalty orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Ld.CIT(A) had passed ex parte orders as the assessee did not respond to notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte penalty orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) were valid when notices were sent to an incorrect email address, violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B,Section 271A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA

Hearing: 23.09.2025Pronounced: 24.10.2025

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

1.

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 appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated & 2106/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Sri Vinayaga Builders & Homes Pvt. Ltd. :: 2 ::

09.11.2023 for AY 2017-18 for confirming the penalty passed u/s.271A of the Act.

2.

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.

3.

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 & 2106/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Sri Vinayaga Builders & Homes Pvt. Ltd. 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.

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →