What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the sufficient cause shown by the assessee. It was held that the matter should be restored to the FAA for fresh adjudication to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case.

The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay, attributing it to being an NRI and the unfortunate demise of his Chartered Accountant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) had passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the ex-parte order passed by the FAA warrants a fresh hearing.

Kumaravel Umapathy vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

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

Hearing: 17.06.2026Pronounced: 17.06.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the Addl/JCIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad order dated 31.10.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.

ITA No.2373/CHNY/2026 - 2 - Kumaravel Umapathy 2. There is a delay of 114 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of appeal. The assessee submitted that he is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) residing abroad and, therefore, could not regularly monitor the Income-tax portal. It was submitted that the assessee became aware of the order of the First Appellate Authority only during the second week of December, 2025. Immediately thereafter, he contacted his Chartered Accountant, Shri Kodandaraman, and entrusted him with the matter of examining the appellate order and taking necessary steps for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee was, therefore, under the bona fide belief that the appeal would be filed within the prescribed time. It was further submitted that despite several attempts, the assessee could neither contact his Chartered Accountant nor receive any response from him. Subsequently, during April, 2026, the assessee came to know that his Chartered Accountant had unfortunately passed away on 19.02.2026. Thereafter, the assessee immediately approached the present counsel and filed the appeal before the Tribunal. On perusal of the reasons stated, we are of the 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.

ITA No.2373/CHNY/2026 - 3 - Kumaravel Umapathy 3. 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 two notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority.

The ld.AR submitted that the assessee had inadvertently failed to take note of the notices issued by the FAA and consequently, remained ex-parte. The Ld.AR further undertook that he would duly appear before the Appellate Authority and furnish the necessary details as and when called for. He, therefore, pleaded that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to effectively present his case before the FAA.

The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the CIT(A) & AO and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was submitted that the appeals of the assessee may be dismissed.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We notice that the proceedings before the FAA were concluded ex-parte, as the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the office of the FAA. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee. The Ld.AR submitted that one more opportunity may be

ITA No.2373/CHNY/2026 - 4 - Kumaravel Umapathy granted to the assessee to represent his case before the CIT(A) and undertook that he would duly appear before FAA and furnish the necessary details as and when called for. In light of the submissions of 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. 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 17th June,2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एस.आर. रघुनाथा) (जॉज� जॉज� के) (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 17th June, 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 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. By Order Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.06.22 12:26:30 +05'30'

KUMARAVEL UMAPATHY,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 19(6), 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