What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one final opportunity to represent its case. The assessee was directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with hearing notices. The assessee sought an adjournment for the last two notices but the appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) was justified, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case.

Dhineshkumar Manimozhi vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND MS PADMAVATHY S

Hearing: 21.04.2026Pronounced: 22.04.2026

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 19.01.2026 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2019-20.

:- 2 -: ITA No.1126/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 three notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority.

The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the FAA had issued three hearing notices, out of which the assessee sought adjournment for the last two notices. However, the FAA dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee failed to comply with the hearing notices. It was therefore prayed that, in the interest of justice and equity, the matter be restored to the file of the FAA, granting the assessee one final opportunity to properly represent its case.

The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the FAA and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was prayed the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The proceeding before the FAA was ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued. The Ld.AR submitted though the assessee had sought adjournment, the FAA had dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance. The Ld. AR submitted

:- 3 -: ITA No.1126/Chny/2026 that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to represent her case before the FAA and undertook that he would duly appear and furnish the necessary details as and when called for. Considering the submissions of the 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 22nd 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 22nd 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 By Order 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.04.28 10:21:40 +05'30'

DHINESHKUMAR MANIMOZHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-15(1), 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