ROHINI,THENI V. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE RANGE 2, MADURAI, MADURAI

ITA 2533/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Ms. Rohini against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was initially dismissed ex-parte by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) due to non-compliance by the assessee with three notices. The penalty order under section 271D of the Act by the AO was also ex-parte. The assessee's representative argued that the assessee had filed a declaration under the VSVS, 2024 scheme, which was relevant to the quantum assessment but not considered by the FAA. The Departmental Representative contended that adequate opportunities were provided and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. The tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's nonchalant attitude but prioritizing justice and fair play, decided to restore the matter to the AO for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 827412 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: R. VENKATA RAMAN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘बी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2533/CHNY/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Rohini, 23D/13/19 Bharathiyar Nagar North 4th Street, Cumbum LSG SO, Theni – 625 516. PAN: AETPR 1056A Vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Range 2, Madurai (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 05.01.2026 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 10.07.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2533/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. At the very outset, we notice that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) is ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to three notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. Further, we also notice that the impugned penalty order passed u/s.271D of the Act by the AO is also ex-parte. 3. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the order passed by the FAA is ex-parte. The Ld.AR submitted that before the FAA the assessee has stated that she has filed declaration under VSVS, 2024 and further, she has availed the VSVS, 2024 scheme in the quantum assessment. However, the Ld.FAA had dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte by observing that quantum assessment and penalty proceedings are separate and assessee has not filed any valid explanation. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the impugned penalty order passed by the AO is also ex-parte since the assessee had not responded to the notices issued. Since the assessee has not produced any submission before the AO and the FAA, the Ld.AR for the assessee only pleaded that in the interest of justice and equity, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2533/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: the issue may be restored to the files of the AO as a last opportunity for proper representation of her case. 4. The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the AO and the FAA and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was prayed the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The proceedings before the AO as well as the FAA was ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to various notices issued. The assessee has not produced any submissions or documents before the AO nor the FAA. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the offices of the FAA and the AO. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the matter ought to be restored to the files of the AO. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co- operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2533/Chny/2025 :- 4 -: 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 5th January, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एस.आर. रघुनाथा) (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 5th January, 2026 RSR आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Chennai 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. Printed from counselvise.com "