What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order and violated principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment after admitting the additional evidence.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) without considering additional evidence filed by the assessee. The CIT(A) relied on the AO's objection without providing the assessee an opportunity to rebut the same, leading to a violation of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering additional evidence and providing an opportunity to the assessee to rebut the AO's objections, thereby violating natural justice.

C. Thangaraj, Tirupur vs ACIT | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

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

Hearing: 03.06.2026Pronounced: 09.07.2026

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 06.11.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2016-17.

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee drawing our attention to the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has

ITA No.3783/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) C. Thangaraj :: 2 :: passed a cryptic order without application of mind. He also brought to our notice that assessee had filed additional evidence before the Ld.CIT(A) and pursuant to it, CIT(A) called for remand report from the AO, wherein the AO objected to admission of additional evidences; and the Ld.CIT(A) without giving a copy of the remand report and confronting the assessee, has simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Hence, according to the Ld.AR there is a violation of natural justice.

The Ld.DR could not controvert the aforesaid submission of the Ld.AR and having perused the records we find force in the submission of the Ld.AR of the assessee and find that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is not speaking order and even though assessee filed additional evidences, merely because AO objected to admission of additional evidences, the CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal of the assessee without giving an opportunity to rebut it, hence action of the Ld.CIT(A) cannot be countenanced.

Reason is the heartbeat of the judgment, which is absent in this case. As noted, even though the assessee had filed additional evidences the same have not been admitted only on the objection of the AO and that too without giving an opportunity to the assessee to rebut the same. Hence, we find there is violation of natural justice; and also taking note that the assessee has filed additional evidences before us, and for the

ITA No.3783/Chny/2025 (AY 2016-17) C. Thangaraj :: 3 :: ends of justice and fair play to both sides, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee before the AO and hence, we set aside the impugned order the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of AO for de nova assessment. The AO is directed to admit the additional evidences filed by the assessee and after giving proper opportunity to the assessee, frame assessment in accordance to law.

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

Order pronounced on the 09th day of July, 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: 09th 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 R SINGH Date: 2026.07.20 SINGH 15:27:20 +05'30'

C. THANGARAJ,TIRUPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, TIRUPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments