What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the FAA has no jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating on merits. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) for non-compliance with notices. The assessee claimed they could not submit complete details regarding cash deposits during assessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether an appellate authority can dismiss an appeal for non-compliance without deciding on merits. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.

Ms. Sundarambal Jyaramakrishnan 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 24.12.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2019-20.

:- 2 -: ITA No.1086/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 the four notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. We also note that the FAA had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in-limine without adjudicating the issues on merits.

The Ld.AR submitted that the FAA has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance and not on merits. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee could not submit the complete details with regard to the cash deposits made during the relevant year before the AO at the time of assessment proceedings. Therefore, it was prayed, in the interest of justice and equity, assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case before the AO.

The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the FAA and AO and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. However, he could not controvert the fact that the FAA has dismissed the appeal for non- compliance.

:- 3 -: ITA No.1086/Chny/2026 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The proceeding before FAA was ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to three notices issued. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the offices of the FAA. We also noted that the FAA has simpliciter dismissed the appeal for non-compliance and not adjudicated or decided merits of the case. We find that appellate authority has no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for default of non-compliance without going into merits. The FAA is bound to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of assessee. This view of ours is supported by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Southern Steel Industries vs. AAC (CT), reported in [1996] 101 STC 273 (Mad). In term of the above, the order of FAA is set aside. Further, the Ld.AR had submitted that complete details with regard to cash deposits made during the relevant year could not be submitted at the time of assessment proceedings. Therefore, 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 AO. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to

:- 4 -: ITA No.1086/Chny/2026 furnish the required details and 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 10:10:27 +05'30'

MS. SUNDARAMBAL JYARAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(2), 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