M/S. GANAPATHYRAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-15(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 917/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2026AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. For ends of justice, the order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte. The assessee claimed to have not received subsequent notices due to technical glitches and sought another opportunity. The Revenue opposed this.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits is valid. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 20.04.2026Pronounced: 25.05.2026

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 THE ‘Ld.CIT(A)‘), Delhi, dated 31.12.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY ‘) 2013-14 u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act ‘).

ITA No. 917 /Chny/2026 (AY 2013-14) Ganapathyram :: 2 :: 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against action of the Ld.CIT(A) who has passed an ex parte order without going into the legal issue as well as on the merits of the case. Since the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the order ex parte without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, according to assessee, it is in violation of sub- section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short “the Act. According to the assessee, he received one notice of hearing wherein he sought adjournment, but, due to some glitches in the internet/digital/computer he didn’t receive the other three notices which Ld.CIT(A) claims to have issued to the assessee. Therefore, he prays for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A).

3.

Per contra, the Ld.DR does not want us to give one more inning to the assessee.

4.

Having heard both the parties and after perusal of records, we note that impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order qua assessee. We note that the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the grounds of appeal as required u/s.250(6) of the Act. In such circumstances, for the ends of justice and fair play, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on the legal issue/merits after hearing the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be diligent and file relevant

ITA No. 917 /Chny/2026 (AY 2013-14) Ganapathyram :: 3 :: documents/written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A); and the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the grounds as per sub-section (6) of sec.250 of the Act.

5.

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

Order pronounced on the 25th day of May, 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (इंटूरी रामा राव) (एबी टी. वर्की) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चेन्नई/Chennai, ददनाांक/Dated: 25th May, 2026. KB आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy to: 1. अपीलार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. ववभागीयप्रविविवि/DR 5. गार्डफाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →