What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding merit in the assessee's submission that they were not aware of the proceedings due to improper communication. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a significant delay. The assessee claimed they were unaware of the CIT(A)'s order as notices were sent to an email address they had explicitly requested not to be used for communication.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to the assessee's lack of awareness of the CIT(A)'s order. Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without proper communication.

Subramanian Latha, Trichy vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

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

Hearing: 11.05.2026Pronounced: 29.06.2026

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 (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)’, Delhi, dated 28.04.2023 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as “AY”) 2014-15.

ITA Nos.1378/Chny/2026 (AY.2014-15) Subramanian Latha :: 2 :: 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 984 days in filing of this appeal before this Tribunal. Explaining the delay, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee was not aware of the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 28.04.2023 and by the time the assessee came to know about the existence of this order, it was time barred by 984 days. The Ld.AR drew our attention to the Form-35 filed by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) wherein assessee has shown the e-mail address of assessee as Lakshvim@gmail.com, but specifically stated/answered in negative (“No”) to question whether notices/communication may be sent on e-mail. However, according to the Ld.AR, the notices as well as the impugned order was sent on the very same e-mail ID, because of which assessee was not aware of the appellate proceedings as well as the existence of the impugned order. We find that despite the assessee has clearly mentioned not to send notices/communication on e-mail ID to Lakshvim@gmail.com, but office of the Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have issued 4 (four) notices to the same e-mail ID, hence, we find force in the submission of the Ld.AR that assessee was not aware of the notices as well as the impugned order which has been served on the e-mail. Since, the Ld.DR could not controvert the aforesaid fact as noted from perusal of the Form-35 filed by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A), hence, we are of the view that assessee cannot be faulted for not filing appeal on time before this

ITA Nos.1378/Chny/2026 (AY.2014-15) Subramanian Latha :: 3 :: Tribunal and hence we condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeal.

Having admited the appeal, we note that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex parte order without hearing the assessee since the 4 (four) notices issued by him has given to the e-mail Lakshvim@gmail.com, which assessee has specifically stated not to send any communication to him through the said e-mail. Hence, such impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) cannot be countenanced since, he was duty bound to pass order as to brought under sub-section 6 to section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). Hence, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the grounds of appeal in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 29th day of June, 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: 29th June, 2026. YS

YASHVIR Digitally signed by YASHVIR SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.07.07 13:17:47 +05'30'

ITA Nos.1378/Chny/2026 (AY.2014-15) Subramanian Latha :: 4 :: 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

SUBRAMANIAN LATHA,TRICHY vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), TRICHY

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