What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the belated filing. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to ex-parte proceedings caused by incorrect email service.

The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay. The delay was attributed to notices from the CIT(A) being sent to the former auditor's email address instead of the one provided by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to non-receipt of notices should be set aside.

Muthukumaraswamy Manickavasagom 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 24.02.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016-17.

:- 2 -: ITA No.1081/Chny/2026 2. There is a delay of 301 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. It was stated that the assessee had furnished his email id in Form 35, as rajeshdirector123@gmail.com, however the hearing notices as well as the order of the CIT(A) were served on the email id of the former auditor, namely ncaaudit@gmail.com A screenshot evidencing service of notice on the auditor’s email ID has also been placed on record as part of the affidavit. In view of the above, it was contended that the assessee was unaware of the hearing notices as well as the order passed by the CIT(A). It was only upon receipt of a telephone call from the office of the AO on 23.02.2026, regarding the outstanding demand, that the assessee became aware of the order. Thereafter, the assessee immediately consulted his auditor and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal, resulting in the delay. On perusal of the reasons stated in the affidavit, we are of the considered 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 First Appellate Authority’s (FAA) order is ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the

:- 3 -: ITA No.1081/Chny/2026 assessee to six notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority.

The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that e-mail communications from the office of the First Appellate Authority were not received by the assessee since it was not sent to the e-mail id given by the assessee in Form 35, whereas it was sent to some other e-mail address. It was submitted that said e-mail belong to the assessee’s former auditor. In this context, the ld.AR took us through the screenshot of notice issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority and the Form 35 filed before the FAA. Since, the assessee has not received the hearing notices sent through email, resulted in non-cooperation of assessee during the appellate proceedings. It was prayed in the interest of justice and equity, the issue may be restored to the files of the FAA for proper representation of his case.

The Ld.DR was duly heard.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority were served on an incorrect e-mail address and

:- 4 -: ITA No.1081/Chny/2026 not on the e-mail address furnished by the assessee in Form No. 35. Hence, the assessee could not appear during appellate proceedings. Therefore, there is adequate reason for restoring the matter to the First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the First Appellate Authority 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 RSR 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: 2026.04.24 10:09:45 +05'30'

MUTHUKUMARASWAMY MANICKAVASAGOM,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 10(6), CHENNAI , 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