POTHU PRABHAVATHI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, SURYAPET

ITA 1144/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 October 2026AY 2021-225 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-participation. The assessee provided evidence from the ITBA Portal showing that notices were sent to an email ID other than the one provided in Form-35. This clearly indicated that the assessee could not respond to the notices due to non-communication through the correct email ID. Therefore, the assessee was not afforded an effective opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pothu Prabhavathi, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad Bench, against the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the learned CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, for the assessment year 2021-2022. The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was against the CIT(A)'s order which had sustained additions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte because notices were sent to an incorrect email ID, not the one provided in Form-35. Consequently, the assessee could not represent its case. The revenue did not seriously oppose a remand.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in deciding the appeal ex-parte, thereby not affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The learned AR argued that the CIT(A) passed the impugned order ex-parte as the assessee did not respond to notices. The notices were issued to an email ID different from the one provided in Form-35. Due to this improper service and non-communication, the assessee could not represent its case. Therefore, the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication. Revenue's Contention: The learned DR did not seriously oppose the assessee's request for a remand to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

Pronounced: 09.10.2026

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the Order dated 15.01.2026 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short "NFAC"], Delhi, for the assessment year 2021-2022. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

“The order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Ap

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 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →