What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to represent its case and file evidence before the Ld. CIT(A).

The assessee failed to make any compliance or submit documentary evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) despite multiple notices. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-submission of evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-compliance and non-submission of evidence, or if the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.

Babu Nizam, Salem vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, ’ए’ �ायपीठ,चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ीयस यस िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं सु�ीपदमावती यस, लेखा सद�के सम� BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY.S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 3888/Chny/2026 िनधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Babu Nizam, Vs. The ITO, 115, Karikalan Street, Ward-1(1), Shevapet, Salem, Tamil Nadu Salem. 636002. [PAN: AEXPN4170M] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : None ��थ�कीओरसे/ Respondent by Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl. CIT : सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of hearing : 15.09.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 18.09.2026 : आदेश /O R D E RJ PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.06.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi for the assessment year 2019-20.

At the outset, we note that no compliance whatsoever was made by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), which is evident from para No. 4 of the impugned order, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) issued seven notices, the first one being dated 21.10.2024, which was served to the assessee’s email, and no reply was offered. Further, the last notice being dated 09.06.2026,

2 ITA No. 3888/Chny/2026 wherein we find no compliance was made by the assessee. Further, on reading para No. 5 of the impugned order, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-submission of any documentary evidence in support of the grounds of appeal. Therefore, considering the same and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee shall represent its case before the Ld. CIT(A) without fail. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 18th September, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S. PADMAVATHY) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Chennai, Dated: 18.09.2026 MM आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड�फाईल/GF.

3 ITA No. 3888/Chny/2026

Digitally signed MANISH by MANISH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2026.09.23 17:29:42 +05'30'

BABU NIZAM,SALEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER / WARD 1(1), SALEM

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments