What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee not at fault due to non-service of orders. The ex parte orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.

The assessee filed appeals before the ITAT with a delay of 110 days. The delay occurred because the CIT(A) passed ex parte orders, and the copies were not served on the assessee's correct email ID, leading to the assessee's unawareness of the proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to non-service of ex parte orders on the correct email ID. Whether the ex parte orders passed by the CIT(A) are sustainable when the assessee was unaware of the proceedings.

Arayakkandi Kandoth Sajeevan vs ACIT | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & MS. PADMAVATHY.S

Hearing: 13.08.2026Pronounced: 03.09.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 09.10.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2010-11 &n2011-12 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’‘).

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 110 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit

No.2278/Chny/2026 (AY 2010-11) Arayakkandi Kandoth Sajeevan :: 2 :: explaining the delay. On perusal of the same, it is revealed that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex parte orders, copy of which were not served upon the assessee at the email ID furnished by him in Form No. 35. Instead, the order was sent to the email ID mentioned earlier in the return of income, which, as on date of filing Form 35, wasn’t valid. In this regard, the Ld. AR Mr. Girish Kumar, Advocate drew our attention to Form No. 35 filed by the assessee, wherein the assessee had furnished a different email ID:dappand@gmail.com for correspondence. And further note that the notices as well as the copy of the impugned orders were sent by the Ld. CIT(A), not to the said email ID furnished by the assessee in Form No. 35. Hence, the defense set up by the assessee is that he wasn’t aware of the existence of the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 09.10.2025, which in-turn resulted in the delay of 110 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal, stands established.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee cannot be held to be at fault for not filing the appeals within the prescribed time, as he was not aware of the passing of impugned orders by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we condone the delay of 110 days in filing the appeals before us and proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. At the outset, the Ld. AR pointed out that the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) are ex parte orders passed qua the assessee. It is noted that the Ld. CIT(A), finding no response from the

No.2278/Chny/2026 (AY 2010-11) Arayakkandi Kandoth Sajeevan :: 3 :: assessee despite granting 12/11 opportunities has dismissed the appeals of the assessee.

In this regard, as noted supra, the Ld. CIT(A) had erroneously issued notices not to the registered email ID mentioned in Form No. 35. Hence, the assessee was unaware of the appellate proceedings going on in these cases of the assessee. Therefore, the impugned action of the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeals of the assessee cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, we are inclined to set aside the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeals back to his file for de novo adjudication of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard.

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 03rd day of September, 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (पदमावती यस) (एबी टी. वक�) (Padmavathy. S) (ABY T. VARKEY) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 03rd September, 2026. MM YASHVI Digitally signed by YASHVIR R SINGH Date: SINGH 2026.09.17 03:06:49 -07'00'

No.2278/Chny/2026 (AY 2010-11) Arayakkandi Kandoth Sajeevan :: 4 :: आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

ARAYAKKANDI KANDOTH SAJEEVAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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