What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without adjudicating the grounds of appeal. Given the circumstances of the notices going to the spam folder, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte as the assessee did not respond to notices. The assessee claimed the notices went to their spam folder due to internet glitches, preventing them from responding.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) without considering the grounds of appeal is valid when the assessee claims non-receipt of notices due to technical issues.

Mr. Radhakrishnan Srinivasan vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

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

Hearing: 20.07.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’अ’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI �ी एबी टी. वक�, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद� के सम� BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 2658/Chny/2026 �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mr. Radhakrishnan Srinivasan, v. ITO No. 17, Hanumantharayan Koil Non Corporate Ward-12(1), Street, Chennai-600006 Sowcarpet, Chennai-600001 [PAN: HBFPS 5559 M] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent/Revenue) अपीलाथ� की ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. N. Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate &Dr. L. Natarajan, CA ��थ� की ओर से /Respondent/Revenue : Mrs. Anshu Sharawat, Addl. CIT by सुनवाईक�तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 20.07.2026 घोषणाक�तार�ख /Date of : 20.08.2026 Pronouncement 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 18.03.2026 for the Assessment Years (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2020-21 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No. 2658/Chny/2026 (AY 2020-21) Mr. R Srinivasan :: 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 adjudicating the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. According to the assessee, the assessee didn’t receive the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) may be because of the glitches in the internet, the notices had gone to the spam account of the assessee. Hence, assessee couldn’t respond and therefore prayed 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 nine (9) occasions and finding no response from the assessee, has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In this regard, it has been brought to our notice that the assessee was not aware of the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A), because, notices got delivered in the ‘SPAM’ account of the assessee instead of the inbox of email id of assessee. In such a scenario, the assessee can’t be faulted for not responding to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A).

ITA No. 2658/Chny/2026 (AY 2020-21) Mr. R Srinivasan :: 3 :: Therefore, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the 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) 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/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (एबी टी. वक�) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL 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 12:31:05 -07'00'

MR. RADHAKRISHNAN SRINIVASAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-12(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