What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be faulted for not responding to notices sent to an invalid email ID. Therefore, the ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte because the notices were sent to an incorrect email ID. The correct email ID was provided in Form 35, but the CIT(A)'s office continued to use the wrong one.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) is valid when notices were sent to an incorrect email ID provided by the assessee.

Rajasekaran, Salem vs ACIT | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 20.07.2026Pronounced: 20.08.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 28.10.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2022-23 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order qua the assessee, since, the assessee didn’t respond to his notices. In this regard, the Ld. AR brought to our notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has issued notices to wrong e-mail ID

ITA No. 2626/Chny/2026 (AY 2022-23) Rajasekaran :: 2 :: i.e. vsrajasekaran1963@gmail.com whereas assessee has clearly stated in the Form 35 the E-mail ID was accsm37@gmail.com and therefore, assessee cannot be faulted for non-responding to the notices issued to invalid E-mail id. Therefore, prays for one more opportunity before the Ld. CIT(A).

Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee.

Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, it is noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order qua assessee without considering the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in accordance with sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act,. The Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have issued notices to the assessee on four (4) occasions and finding no response from the assessee, has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In this regard, Ld AR brought to our notice that the assessee wasn’t aware of the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A), since there was change in the E-mail ID. Though assessee bringing to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A) [by stating in the Form 35] that his current E-mail id is accsm37@gmail.com, still the office of Ld. CIT(A) issued notices to the invalid email id vsrajasekaran1963@gmail.com. In such a scenario, the assessee can’t be faulted for not responding to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the

ITA No. 2626/Chny/2026 (AY 2022-23) Rajasekaran :: 3 :: assessee and therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct him to pass orders on merits in respect of grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Having said so, we direct the Ld.AR of the assessee to file written submissions and relevant evidences in support of its grounds of appeal and be diligent in responding to the Ld.CIT(A)’s notices. With these observations, we dispose of the instant appeal.

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

Order pronounced on the 20th day of August, 2026, in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वक�) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (ABY T. VARKEY) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 20th August, 2026. YS 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 YASH Digitally signed by YASHVIR VIR SINGH Date: 2026.09.03 SINGH 12:23:01 -07'00'

RAJASEKARAN,SALEM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

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