What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without considering the merits of the appeal and in violation of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to provide the assessee with another opportunity.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte without proper opportunity. The CIT(A) issued notices but passed the order despite the assessee seeking a two-week adjournment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without granting a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Thadey Adnan Ahmed vs DCIT | 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 30.03.2026 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2023-24 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.2648/Chny/2026 (AY 2023-24) Thadey Adnan Ahmed :: 2 :: 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order qua the assessee without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. In this regard, the Ld. AR brought to our notice that the Ld. CIT(A) had issued two notices of hearing on 10.03.2026 and 16.03.2026 and thereafter, passed the impugned order on 30.03.2026 despite the assessee seeking adjournment for two (2) weeks. According to the Ld. AR, such an act of the Ld. CIT(A) is in violation of natural justice and therefore prayed for one more opportunity before the Ld. CIT(A).

Per contra, the Ld. DR does not want us to give one more innings to the assessee.

Heard both the parties and after perusal of the records. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order qua the assessee without going into the merits of the ground of appeal raised by the assessee. It is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has given only two (2) opportunities to the assessee, despite the assessee pleaded for two (2) weeks adjournment. The Ld. CIT(A) is noted to have hurriedly passed the impugned order without going into the merits of the ground of appeal raised by the assessee, when assessee requested for adjournment, which action of the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be countenanced. Considering these facts, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee and hence, we set

ITA No.2648/Chny/2026 (AY 2023-24) Thadey Adnan Ahmed :: 3 :: 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 order on merits qua 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 his grounds of appeal and be diligent in responding to the Ld.CIT(A) notices. With these observations, we dispose of the instant appeal.

In the result, the appeal of 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 12:07:07 -07'00'

THADEY ADNAN AHMED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP. CIRCLE-3(1), 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