MOSES SUNDARDASS KINGSLY VIJAY,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, NCW-22(1), TAMBARAM

ITA 1699/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 September 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 25-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the belated filing as the assessee was out of station and unaware of the order. The Tribunal acknowledged that both the assessment and the FAA's order were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response to notices. While deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and fair play, decided to restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who was directed to cooperate with the Revenue and furnish all necessary details and evidence without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the validity of the ex-parte order and best judgment assessment, as the matter was being remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Moses Sundardass Kingsly Vijay, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2020-21. There was a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal, which the assessee attributed to being out of station and unaware of the appellate authority's order until recovery proceedings commenced. The First Appellate Authority's (FAA) order was ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with three notices. The assessment itself was completed on a best judgment basis under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed unfamiliarity with online proceedings and non-receipt of physical notices as reasons for non-compliance.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee. (Question of fact) 2. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and the best judgment assessment are valid, given the assessee's alleged lack of awareness of proceedings and notices. (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural compliance under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to being out of station and unaware of the FAA's order. The assessee also contended that no physical notice was served regarding appellate proceedings, and they are unfamiliar with online procedures, leading to the ex-parte order. They pleaded for another opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer (AO) and undertook to cooperate. The assessee relied on the fact that the assessment was completed on a best judgment basis. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that adequate opportunities were provided by the FAA and AO, and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 24.09.2026Pronounced: 25.09.2026

PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.11.2025, passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2020-21. Moses Sundarass Kingsly Vijay

2.

There is a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal. The assess

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →