SYED SALAHUDDIN,CHENNAI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NON-CORP, WARD 3(3), CHENNAI, CHENNAI
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) under Section 250 for Assessment Year 2016-17. The CIT(A) passed the order without considering the assessee's adjournment request and based on a draft valuation report, despite the assessee's bona fide belief that the final order would be issued only after a final valuation report and an opportunity to file objections.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to file written submissions and documentary evidences and decide the issue in accordance with law. A legal ground challenging the validity of a notice under Section 143(2) for being unsigned was not pressed by the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order based on a draft valuation report without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee to file objections and make submissions, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, ‘डी’ �यायपीठ, चे�नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी जॉज� जॉज� के, उपा�य� एवं �ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:4086/CHNY/2025 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Syed Salahuddin, The Income Tax Officer, No.15/8, Greams Road, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), SO Gulam Abbas Ali Khan, Chennai. 3rd Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006. PAN: AKIPS 7374P (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Bharat Janarthanan, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Arron Prasad, Addl.CIT (Through Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12.03.2026 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai dated 29.10.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016-17.
ITA No.4086/CHNY/2025 :- 2 -: 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 six notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority.
The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee had filed a request for adjournment on 23.10.2025, which the CIT(A) had not taken note of and proceeded to pass the appellate order without providing any opportunity to the assessee to file written submissions or furnish documentary evidences. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) passed the appellate order based on the draft valuation report, as the assessee had not filed any objections to the said draft valuation. The Ld. AR contended that the assessee was under a bona fide belief that the CIT(A) would pass the order only after receipt of the final valuation report, against which the assessee would be given an opportunity to file objections. Therefore, the Ld. AR prayed that, in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to properly represent his case before the CIT(A).
ITA No.4086/CHNY/2025 :- 3 -: 4. The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the CIT(A) 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 the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee has filed additional grounds raising a legal issue that the order passed by the AO u/s.143(3) of the Act is invalid on the ground that the notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act was unsigned. However, at the time of hearing, the Ld. AR did not press the said legal ground and therefore the same is dismissed as not pressed. The Ld. AR only contended that the assessee was under a bona fide belief that the CIT(A) would pass the appellate order only after receipt of the final valuation report, against which the assessee would be given an opportunity to file objections. However, the CIT(A) proceeded to pass the appellate order observing that the assessee had not filed any objections to the draft valuation report. Considering the submissions of the Ld. AR and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) shall afford adequate opportunity to
ITA No.4086/CHNY/2025 :- 4 -: the assessee to file written submissions and documentary evidences and thereafter decide the issue in accordance with law. 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 partly-allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13th March, 2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (एस.आर. रघुनाथा) (जॉज� जॉज� के) (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 13th March, 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 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.
