KUMARAVADIVEL SUGANYA,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), ERODE, ERODE
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ यायपीठ, चे ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ी एबी टी. वक
, ाियक सद एवं
एवं
एवं
एवं
ी जगदीश, लेखा सद के सम
BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2147/Chny/2025
िनधारणवष/Assessment Year: 2017-18
Kumaravadivel Suganya,
23, Nethaji Nagar,
Sukkiramaniya Valasu,
Erode-638 011. v.
The ITO,
Ward-1(1),
Erode.
[PAN: HGAPS 5644 P]
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)
(यथ/Respondent)
अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by :
Ms. S. Mathangi, Advocate
यथ क ओर से /Respondent by :
Mr. Nishanth Rao, JCIT
सुनवाईकतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
22.10.2025
घोषणाकतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
28.11.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned
Commissioner of Income
Tax
(Appeal)/Addl./JCIT(A),
(hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Thane, dated 10.07.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is noted that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is ex parte qua assessee. According to the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee didn’t respond to his notices dated 22.01.2021 & 14.02.2025 which led him to pass the impugned ex parte order. But, according to the Ld.AR, the Kumaravadivel Suganya
:: 2 ::
allegation of the Ld.CIT(A) that assessee didn’t respond to his notices are per se wrong because the assessee had uploaded the replies/explanation to the notices; and in order to support such a contention brought to our notice the acknowledgement given by the department regarding uploading/filing of the same. Having perused the acknowledgment given by the department which confirm the fact that assessee had uploaded response to the questions raised by the Ld.CIT(A), goes on to disprove the allegation of the Ld.CIT(A) that assessee didn’t respond to his notices, which was the reason for him to pass the ex parte order. Hence, we find that there is violation of natural justice resulting in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) being vitiated and therefore, we are inclined to set aside the same and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal on merits after hearing the assessee and the assessee to file all the relevant documents to support the grounds of appeal raised by him and the Ld.CIT(A) to pass order in accordance to law.
3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 28th day of November, 2025, in Chennai. (जगदीश)
(JAGADISH)
लेखा सद /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (एबी टी. वक
)
(ABY T. VARKEY)
याियक सदय/JUDICIAL MEMBER
Kumaravadivel Suganya
:: 3 ::
चे ई/Chennai,
!दनांक/Dated: 28th November, 2025. TLN
आदेश क ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ/Appellant
2. थ/Respondent
3. आयकरआयु/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore.
4. िवभागीयितिनिध/DR
5. गाड फाईल/GF