INDRAYANI BIOTECH LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORP. WARD-2(3), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the FAA's order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The FAA was directed to consider the assessee's submissions and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the FAA due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee claimed to have filed written submissions which were not considered by the FAA.
What were the issues?
Whether the FAA erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's filed submissions. Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL
आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 09.03.2026 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2023-24.
ITA No.1429/CHNY/2026 - 2 - Indrayani Biotech Ltd 2. At the very outset, we notice that the order of First Appellate Authority (FAA) is ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to the various notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority.
The Ld. AR submitted that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte on the ground that the assessee had neither responded to the hearing notices nor furnished any supporting or cogent submissions. Consequently, the FAA confirmed the addition made by the AO u/s. 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act, holding that the genuineness and creditworthiness of the impugned credits remained unverified in the absence of any explanation. The Ld. AR, however, contended that the assessee had duly filed detailed written submissions in response to the notice dated 13.10.2025 through the ITBA portal, but the same were not taken into consideration by the FAA while passing the impugned order. In support of this contention, the Ld. AR produced copy of the e- Proceedings Response Acknowledgement evidencing the filing of the submissions. It was, therefore, prayed that, in the interest of justice and fair play, the matter may be restored to the file of the FAA for fresh adjudication after considering the written submissions already
ITA No.1429/CHNY/2026 - 3 - Indrayani Biotech Ltd filed and after affording the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the office of the FAA and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was prayed the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.
We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The FAA dismissed the appeal of assessee by observing that no reply/evidence was filed by the assessee to explain the credits in assessee’s bank statements. However, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had, in fact, filed written submissions in response to the notice through the ITBA portal and that the same were not considered by the FAA while passing the impugned order. A copy of the e-Proceedings Response Acknowledgement has also been placed on record in support of this contention. Considering the above facts and in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the matter ought to be restored to the files of the FAA for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to extend full cooperation during the appellate proceedings and furnish all necessary documents and evidences to establish the identity, creditworthiness and
ITA No.1429/CHNY/2026 - 4 - Indrayani Biotech Ltd genuineness of the impugned credits. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the FAA for fresh adjudication. The FAA shall consider the submissions / evidences produced by the assessee and afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the FAA for fresh adjudication. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd July,2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (गगन गोयल) (GAGAN GOYAL) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 3rd July, 2026 RSR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Chennai 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. By Order Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.07.07 11:36:18 +05'30'
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026