CDR & CO CONSTRUCTIONS,KARISALPATTI, USILAMPATTI TALUK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP.WARD 1(5), MADURAI, INCOME TAX OFFICE, MADURAI

ITA 129/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 August 2026AY 2023-20243 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee was directed to file submissions and documents, and the Ld.CIT(A) was to adjudicate the grounds of appeal after hearing the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte as the assessee failed to respond to notices. The assessee claimed they never received the notices, possibly due to them going to a spam account.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld.CIT(A) order passed ex parte without the assessee receiving proper notice is sustainable. The need for the assessee to be given an opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Hearing: 18.06.2026Pronounced: 06.08.2026

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 12.12.2025 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. 129/Chny/2026 (AY 2023-24) CDR & CO Constructions. :: 2 :: 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the impugned order is an ex parte order qua the assessee. The reason for not replying to the notice of the Ld.CIT(A), according to the assessee, is that he never received any notice and hence could not respond. Therefore, the assessee prays 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. The assessee aggrieved by the order passed by the AO on 18.03.2022 for AY 2023-24 has preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have issued four (4) notices and finding no response from the assessee is noted to have dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. The reason for not responding to the notice according to the assessee is that he didn’t receive any notice. According to the assessee maybe the notices might have gone to the spam account of the assessee because of which assessee was in the dark about the existence of the notices. Be that as it may, since we find that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order qua assessee, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication of the ground of appeal raised by the assessee. Assessee is directed to file written submission and relevant documents to support

ITA No. 129/Chny/2026 (AY 2023-24) CDR & CO Constructions. :: 3 :: the grounds of appeal raised before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.

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

Order pronounced on the 06th day of August 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (गगन गोयल) (एबी टी. वक�) (ABY T. VARKEY) (GAGAN GOYAL) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 06th 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 Digitally signed YASHVI by YASHVIR SINGH R SINGH Date: 2026.08.12 16:20:27 +05'30'

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →