SALEM CABLE TELEVISION NETWORK PVT. LTD.,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), , SALEM

ITA 1135/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 April 2026AY 2012-133 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's lack of response, restored the matter to the FAA for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice and fair play. The FAA was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) despite multiple notices, leading to an ex-parte order. The assessee claimed unawareness of the notices as its name was struck off the rolls of the Registrar of Companies (ROC).

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the FAA due to non-compliance by the assessee should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's explanation for non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND MS PADMAVATHY S

Hearing: 21.04.2026Pronounced: 27.04.2026

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 03.12.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2012-13.

:- 2 -: ITA No.1135/Chny/2026 2. At the very outset, we notice that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) is ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to three notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority.

The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee was unaware of the hearing notices issued by the FAA, as its name had been struck off the rolls of ROC. It was therefore prayed that, in the interest of justice and equity, the matter be restored to the file of the FAA, granting the assessee one final opportunity to properly represent its case.

The Ld.DR supported the order of the FAA.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The proceeding before the FAA was ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee’s name had been struck off the rolls of the ROC and hence, the assessee was unaware of the hearing notices issued by the FAA. The Ld. AR submitted that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to represent its case before the FAA and undertook that he would duly appear and furnish the necessary details as and when called for. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant

:- 3 -: ITA No.1135/Chny/2026 attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the office of the FAA. However, considering the submissions of the Ld. AR 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 as a last opportunity. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the FAA for fresh adjudication. The FAA shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. 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 27th April, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (प�मावती एस) (जॉज� जॉज� के) (PADMAVATHY S) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 27th April, 2026 RSR आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Salem 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR By Order 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.04.28 10:22:55 +05'30'

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →