What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file supporting evidence.

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 305 days, which was condoned by the tribunal. The assessee's counsel requested a remand to the CIT(A) as the appeal was dismissed for non-attendance.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal dismissed for non-attendance by the CIT(A) should be remanded for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to present evidence.

Bakthavatchalam Narayanamurthy… vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Hearing: 15.06.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ ए’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी इंटूरी रामाराव, लेखा सद एवं �ी एस.एस. िव"ने$ रिव, �ाियक सद के सम% । Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1900/Chny/2026 िनधा'रण वष'/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bakthavatchalam Narayanamurthy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4 Thiruvallur Nagar Main Road Ward -1, C Sector, V.G. Rao Nagar, Thiruvannamalai. Katpadi S.O, Katpadi, Vellore – 632 007. [PAN: AAFPN-2436-C] (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,थ*/Respondent) अपीलाथ* की ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. T.V Muthu Abirami, Advocate +,थ* की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. S. Manoj Prakash, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 15.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19.

2 ITA No. 1900/Chny/2026

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 305 days. The

assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons to condone the said

delay. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we find

the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really prevented

the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, delay of 305 days

condoned.

The ld.AR, Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate, submits that the

ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-attendance and

drew our attention to the para no.5 of the impugned order. She prayed to

remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A), as the assessee is ready to

file documentary evidences in support of his claim.

The ld.DR, Mr. S. Manoj Prakash, JCIT, reported no objection.

On perusal of the impugned order, we note that the ld.CIT(A) has given

four notices intimating the date of hearing, which is evident from page no.4

of the impugned order, wherein the assessee made no submission in

respect of grounds raised in Form 35. Therefore, taking into account the

circumstances of the case and submissions of the ld.AR and ld.DR, we

deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for a fresh

3 ITA No. 1900/Chny/2026

consideration. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30th June, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Chennai, Dated: 30.06.2026 JPV आदेश की +ितिलिप अ3ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ*/Appellant, 2.+,थ*/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु4/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय +ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड' फाईल/GF.

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.07.02 16:10:40 +05'30'

BAKTHAVATCHALAM NARAYANAMURTHY,VELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1,THIRUVANNAMALAI, THIRUVANNAMALAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Latest GST High Court judgments