Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was against the order of the CIT(A) which was passed ex-parte due to non-compliance with four notices. The assessee's AR argued that the notices were issued in quick succession, leading to failure to respond.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the FAA to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was justified, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
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), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 18.12.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016-17.
2 -: SA No.82/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 four notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority.
The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the FAA had issued four notices of hearing. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had sought adjournment in respect of the first notice of hearing, while the other three notices were issued within a short span of time, i.e., on 06.11.2025, 14.11.2025 and 11.12.2025, which the assessee failed to take note of and, consequently, the appellate proceedings were completed ex-parte. 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.
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 the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the FAA had issued four notices of hearing, out of which the assessee had sought adjournment in respect of the first notice. It was further submitted that the remaining 3 -: SA No.82/CHNY/2026 three notices were issued within a short span of time on 06.11.2025, 14.11.2025 and 11.12.2025, which the assessee failed to take note of, resulting in the appellate proceedings being completed ex-parte. 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 FAA and remit the matter back to the file 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.
Since we have disposed off the appeal, the Stay application is rendered infructuous and is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13th March, 2026 at Chennai.