RAMASWAMY GANESH,MYSORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

ITSSA 610/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 June 2026AY 2017-183 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present its case on merits before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed the order ex parte due to non-compliance with hearing notices, which the assessee attributed to notices being sent to an incorrect email address. The Ld. AR undertook to attend to hearing notices sent to the email address rakshithg24@gmail.com, which is a recent address. The Tribunal directed the assessee to update its details with the Ld. CIT(A) and appear on all future hearing dates without default. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits. The other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeals were not adjudicated at this stage. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ramaswamy Ganesh, filed appeals against the common impugned order dated December 11, 2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bengaluru, for assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18, and 2018-19. The appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) were filed due to the Ld. CIT(A) passing the order ex parte. This occurred because the assessee allegedly did not comply with hearing notices. The assessee's authorized representative (AR) contended that the hearing notices were sent to an incorrect email address, different from the one provided in Form No. 35 for communication purposes. The AR provided evidence of an email sent to this different address.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18, and 2018-19 is valid, considering the assessee's claim of non-receipt of hearing notices due to communication on an incorrect email address, as per Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex parte because hearing notices were sent to an email address different from the one provided in Form No. 35. Evidence of this was placed on record. The assessee wishes to pursue the litigation on merits. Revenue's Contention: No specific contention is recorded for the revenue in the provided judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Appellant: CA : Smt. Divya K.J, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A Nos.: 608, 609, 610 & 611/Bang/2026 Assessment Years : 2018-19, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner of Ramaswamy Ganesh 1110, 2nd Main, 1st stage, Income Tax, Central Circle Vijaynagar, Mysore, 22/16, Revenue Building, Vs. Karnataka 570017 Nazarbad, Mysore PAN: AJQPG9392J APPLICANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Sri. Tarun Kothari, CA : Smt. Divya K.J, CIT-DR Revenue by

Date of Hearing : 02-06-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 04-06-2026

ORDER PER BENCH 1. The assessee has filed the present appeals against the common impugned order dated 11th December 2025, passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bengaluru [“Ld. CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 and 2018-19.

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the materials available on record. It is evident that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed

IT(SS)A No.:608, 609, 610 & 611/Bang/2026 the order ex partedue to non-compliance with the hearing notices on behalf of the assessee. Now, in the appeals before us, the assessee is duly represented by the Ld. Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) and wishes to pursue the litigation against the addition made by the Assessing Officer. During the hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the hearing notices were sent by the Ld. CIT(A) on the e-mail address, which was different from the e-mail address provided in Form No. 35 for the purpose of communication. In support of its contention, the Ld. AR placed on record the copy of the e- mail, which was sent to the e-mail address, which is apparently different from the e-mail address provided in Form No. 35, for the purpose of communication.

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the assessee be hereby granted one more opportunity to represent its case on merits before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the mattersare restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) forde novo adjudication of the appeals on merits after consideration of all the details/submissions as may be filed by the assessee. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. During the hearing, the Ld. AR undertook that the hearing notices issued on the e-mail address provided in Form No. 36, i.e., rakshithg24@gmail.com, shall be attended by the assessee, as it is a recent e-mail address. Since this e-mail address is not mentioned in Form No. 35, we direct the assessee to take immediate steps to update its

Page 2 of 3

IT(SS)A No.:608, 609, 610 & 611/Bang/2026 details in the record of the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the assessee is directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on all dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. As the matters are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeals do not call for adjudication at this stage.Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 4th June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 4th June, 2026. *VM* Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. CIT(A) By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore

Page 3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →