What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to represent its case properly.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee's Managing Partner was undergoing intensive cancer treatment, preventing effective representation.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) should be set aside when the assessee provides valid reasons and supporting evidence for non-compliance due to medical emergencies.

Expovan, Pollachi vs ACIT | s.250 | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 04.09.2026Pronounced: 09.09.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 15.12.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19.

ITA No.1193/CHNY/2026 - 2 - Expovan 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 six notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority.

At the time of hearing, though none appeared on behalf of the assessee, a written submission was filed stating the reasons for non- appearance before the FAA and also enclosing the medical certificates in support of what has been stated in written submission. It was stated that the Managing Partner of the assessee-firm was diagnosed with Head and Neck Cancer and was undergoing intensive treatment, due to which the assessee firm could not effectively represent its case before the FAA. It was, therefore, prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the FAA to enable the assessee to properly represent its case.

The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the FAA and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was prayed the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

We have heard the Ld.DR and perused the material available on record. The proceedings before the FAA were ex-parte, as the assessee could not respond to the notices issued during the appellate

ITA No.1193/CHNY/2026 - 3 - Expovan proceedings. It was submitted that the Managing Partner of the assessee-firm was undergoing intensive treatment for Head and Neck Cancer and, therefore, the assessee could not effectively represent its case before the FAA. Medical certificate in support of above statement is also filed. Considering the circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice and fair play, we are of the considered view that one more opportunity ought to be afforded to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order of the FAA is set aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the FAA for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The FAA shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 9th September,2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एस.आर. रघुनाथा) (जॉज� जॉज� के) (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 9th September, 2026

ITA No.1193/CHNY/2026 - 4 - Expovan RSR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Coimbatore 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. By Order REKHA Digitally signed by REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL Date: 2026.09.11 RAJ 17:45:18 +05'30'

EXPOVAN,POLLACHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE, COIMBATORE, TN-641 018, COIMBATORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments