What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 224 days, citing sufficient cause for the belated filing. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on payment of costs by the assessee.

The assessee's appeal was filed belatedly by 224 days due to alleged non-receipt of hearing notices and real-time alerts from the ITBA portal. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order as the assessee did not comply with four notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal was sufficient cause for condonation? Whether the ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) on non-compliance of notices should be set aside?

M/S.Goyal Ispat Ltd. vs ACIT | ITAT Chennai 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 18.11.2025Pronounced: 18.11.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai dated 30.10.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.

2 -: 2. There is a delay of 224 days in filing the appeal. The appeal ought to have been filed before ITAT on or before 30.12.2024. However, the appeal was filed belatedly on 12.08.2025. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit by the Director of the assessee company stating there in the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated in the affidavit by the Director for belated filing is that, the assessee’s company is unaware of the appellate order being passed as it was uploaded in the ITBA portal and there were no real time alerts. It was submitted that the assessee became aware only when show-cause notice issued in connection with a set aside assessment passed u/s.154C of the Act of the Act was received by the assessee company. Immediately appeal was filed belatedly. After considering the reasons stated in the condonation application/affidavit of the assessee, we are of the view that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of appeal. Hence, we condone the delay of 224 days in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits.

At the very outset, we notice that the order passed by the CIT(A) is ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to four notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority.

3 -: 4. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the has not received the hearing notices issued from the office of the CIT(A). Therefore, he was unaware of the hearing notices issued during the appellate proceedings. Hence, it was prayed in the interest of justice and equity, the issue may be restored to the files of the FAA as a last opportunity for proper representation of its case.

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 rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The proceeding before the CIT(A) was ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has not received the hearing notices in its inbox and there is no real time alert. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the office of the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the matter ought to be restored to the files of the CIT(A) with a condition assessee pays a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to be paid to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The amount 4 -: of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid within a month’s time from the date of receipt of this order and assessee shall produce the receipt for the said payment before the CIT(A). Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) 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.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18th November, 2025 at Chennai.

M/S.GOYAL ISPAT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments