What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one appeal and restored the matters to the FAA for fresh adjudication. This was on the condition that the assessee pays a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.

The assessee failed to appear before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) due to inadvertent non-compliance with notices, leading to ex-parte orders. The assessee sought one more opportunity to present its case effectively.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the FAA after ex-parte proceedings, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

M/S. Opg Business Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 18.06.2026Pronounced: 23.06.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 12.02.2026 & 22.12.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

ITA No.2569 & 2570/CHNY/2026 - 2 - OPG Business Centre Pvt. Ltd. called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2014-15 & 2016- 17.

There is a delay of 61 days in filing the appeal for assessment year 2016-17 in ITA No.2570/CHNY/2026 before the Tribunal. The reasons stated in the affidavit for belated filing is that, the assessee’s company is unaware of the appellate order being passed as it was uploaded in the ITBA portal and there were no real time alerts. It was submitted that the assessee became aware only on receipt of the appellate order for assessment year 2014-15 during December, 2025. Thereafter, immediately the assessee took steps and filed the appeal before the Tribunal, with a delay of 61 days. On perusal of the reasons stated, we are of the view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.

At the very outset, we notice that the orders of First Appellate Authority (FAA) are ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to various notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority.

ITA No.2569 & 2570/CHNY/2026 - 3 - OPG Business Centre Pvt. Ltd. 4. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee had inadvertently failed to take note of the notices issued by the FAA and consequently, remained ex-parte. The Ld.AR further undertook that he would duly appear before the Appellate Authority and furnish the necessary details as and when called for. He, therefore, pleaded that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to effectively present his cases before the FAA.

The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the FAA and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was submitted that the appeals of the assessee may be dismissed.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We notice that the proceedings before the FAA were concluded ex-parte, as the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the office of the FAA. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee. The Ld.AR submitted that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to represent its cases before the FAA and undertook that he would duly appear before FAA and furnish the necessary details as and when called for. Considering the submissions of the Ld. AR and in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the matters ought to be restored to the files of the FAA with

ITA No.2569 & 2570/CHNY/2026 - 4 - OPG Business Centre Pvt. Ltd. a condition assessee pays a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid within a month’s time from the date of receipt of this order and assessee shall produce the receipt for the said payment before the FAA. Accordingly, the matters are 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 furnish all requisite details and evidences in support of his claim and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd June,2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एस.आर. रघुनाथा) (जॉज� जॉज� के) (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 23rd June, 2026 RSR, Sr.PS

ITA No.2569 & 2570/CHNY/2026 - 5 - OPG Business Centre Pvt. Ltd. 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: 2026.06.25 17:25:24 +05'30'

M/S. OPG BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORP. WARD 5(1), CHENNAI

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