ARIFF AHAMED BABAJAN,TRICHY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TRICHY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3382/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 March 2026AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's unfamiliarity with e-appeal procedures and deprecated the non-compliance. However, in the interest of justice, the case was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the order of the CIT(A) which was ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices. The assessment was completed on a best judgment basis under Section 144 of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance with notices should be set aside, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 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

Hearing: 11.03.2026Pronounced: 12.03.2026

O R D E R

PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 22.09.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19.

2 -: 2. At the very outset, we notice that the First Appellate Authority’s (FAA) order is ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to the five notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Further, we also note that the assessment has been completed on best judgment basis u/s.144 of the Act.

3.

The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the order passed by the FAA is ex-parte and the assessment has also been completed on best judgment basis u/s.144 of the Act. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee is unfamiliar with the procedures relating to e-appeals and portal-based communications. Therefore, it was prayed in the interest of justice and equity, the issue may be restored to the files of the AO as a last opportunity for proper representation of the case.

4.

The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the AO and the FAA and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was prayed the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

3 -: 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The proceedings before the AO as well as the FAA was ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to various notices issued. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee is unfamiliar with the procedures relating to e-appeals and portal-based communications. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the offices of the FAA and the AO. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, the matter is remitted to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO 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.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th March, 2026 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →