What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A). The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after hearing the assessee.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte due to non-response to notices. The assessee claims they never received these notices, possibly due to them going to a spam folder.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) was justified when the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.

Subramanian Banumathi… vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Hearing: 18.06.2026Pronounced: 22.07.2026

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 29.04.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2015-16 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 delay caused in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal was not deliberate and

ITA No. 52/Chny/2026 (AY 2015-16) Subramanian Banumathi :: 2 :: has filed an application for condoning the delay supported by affidavit in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. Having consider the contents of the affidavit and application for condonation of the delay, we find the cause for the delay to be excusable and hence, we condone the delay in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal and proceed to hear the appeal on its merits.

Further, 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 to give one more innings to the assessee.

Heard both the parties, it is noted that assessee being aggrieved by the order passed by the AO on 26.03.2022 for AY 2015-16 has preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have issued six (6) 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, which notices according to the assessee, might have gone to the spam account of the assessee

ITA No. 52/Chny/2026 (AY 2015-16) Subramanian Banumathi :: 3 :: 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 in support of 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 22nd day of July 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: 22nd July, 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 YASHVI Digitally signed by YASHVIR SINGH R SINGH Date: 2026.08.03 12:30:10 +05'30'

SUBRAMANIAN BANUMATHI,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VIRUDHUNAGAR

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