What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's lack of response but, in the interest of justice and fair play, decided to restore the matter to the First Appellate Authority. The assessee was granted one last opportunity to represent their case, with a directive to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

The assessee's appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with multiple hearing notices. The assessee's representative sought a final opportunity to present the case, acknowledging a nonchalant attitude but emphasizing the interest of justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be restored to the file of the First Appellate Authority for a fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's non-compliance with notices and the plea for a final opportunity.

Baskaran Suganya, Theni vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND MS PADMAVATHY S

Hearing: 20.04.2026Pronounced: 21.04.2026

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 06.02.2026 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19.

:- 2 -: ITA No.1051/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 six notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority.

The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the FAA had issued six hearing notices, out of which the assessee sought adjournments for only the last two notices. However, the FAA dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee failed to comply with the hearing notices. 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 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 prayed the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

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 though the assessee had sought adjournment, the FAA had dismissed

:- 3 -: ITA No.1051/Chny/2026 the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance. The Ld. AR submitted that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to represent her 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 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 21st 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 21st April, 2026

:- 4 -: ITA No.1051/Chny/2026

RSR आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Madurai 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. By Order Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.04.24 10:07:49 +05'30'

BASKARAN SUGANYA,THENI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, THENI

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