ARULMIGU SUBRAMANYASWAMY THIRUKOIL,THIRUVALLUR vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3566/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2026AY 2023-244 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that an appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating on merits. The FAA is obligated to decide the appeal on its merits, even if the assessee is absent.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) for non-compliance, despite the assessee claiming to have filed submissions online. The assessment itself was completed on a best judgment basis.

What were the issues?

Whether the FAA can dismiss an appeal for non-compliance without considering the merits of the case, and if the assessee's online submissions were duly considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

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

Hearing: 06.05.2026Pronounced: 12.05.2026

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, ‘ए’ �यायपीठ, चे�नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी जॉज� जॉज� के, उपा�य� एवं �ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:3566/CHNY/2025 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2023-24 M/s. Arulmigu The DCIT, Subramanyaswamy Vs. Exemptions, Thirukoil, Chennai. No.01, Tiruthani, Thiruvallur – 631 209. PAN: AACTA 3966H (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri D. Balachandar, JCIT सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06.05.2026 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 12.05.2026 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 National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 19.11.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2023-24.

ITA No.3566/CHNY/2025 :- 2 -: 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 various notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. Further, we also note that the assessment has been completed on best judgment basis r.w.s.144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.

3.

The Ld.AR submitted that, in response to the notices issued by the FAA, the assessee had filed its submissions on 13.08.2025 through the online portal, which is also recorded at para 4 of the impugned order. However, the FAA proceeded to dismiss the appeal without considering the said submissions, observing at para 5.2.2 that no response had been filed by the appellant in support of his contentions. The Ld.AR further submitted that, during the assessment proceedings as well, the assessee had filed its submissions on 14.02.2025 before the AO. In support of these submissions, the Ld. AR furnished screenshots from the e-portal evidencing the filing of responses both before the AO and the FAA. It was further contended that the FAA dismissed the appeal for alleged non-compliance without adjudicating the issues on merits. It was thus prayed that, in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to present its case

ITA No.3566/CHNY/2025 :- 3 -: before the AO, so as to enable the assessee to substantiate its claim with the necessary details.

4.

The Ld.DR was duly heard.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The proceedings before FAA was admittedly ex- parte. On perusal of the impugned order, we noted that the FAA has simpliciter dismissed the appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating the issues on merits. 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.

6.

In the facts of the present case, it is also observed that the assessee has claimed to have filed its responses to the notices issued by the AO as well as the FAA through e-portal, which, however, were not considered while passing the respective orders. The Ld.AR has

ITA No.3566/CHNY/2025 :- 4 -: also placed on record screenshots evidencing such filings. In these circumstances and in the interest of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. The AO is directed to consider the submissions/evidences filed by the assessee and to afford a 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 its claim and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12th May, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एस.आर. रघुनाथा) (जॉज� जॉज� के) (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 12th May, 2026 RSR, Sr.PS 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 By Order 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.05.15 11:53:05 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →