SYED KHAJA MOHIDEEN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-17(7), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1991/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the FAA has no jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating on merits. The FAA is bound to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee subsequently filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay, citing non-receipt of notices as an NRI. The ITAT condoned the delay, acknowledging the reason for it.

What were the issues?

Whether the FAA can dismiss an appeal ex-parte for non-compliance without deciding the appeal on merits? Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

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

Hearing: 18.09.2025Pronounced: 18.09.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 29.10.2024, 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 197 days in filing the appeal. The appeal ought to have been filed before ITAT on or before 28.12.2024. However, the appeal was filed belatedly on 16.07.2025. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and affidavit stating there in the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reason stated is that the assessee is an NRI and had not received the hearing notices or order passed by the FAA at his address. Therefore, he was unaware of the order passed being passed and hence, he could not file the appeal within the time. On perusal of the reason stated, we find there is sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.

3.

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 five notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. We also note that the FAA had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in-limine without adjudicating the issues on merits.

4.

The Ld.AR submitted that the FAA has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance and not on merits. It was prayed, in the

5.

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. However, she could not controvert the fact that the FAA has dismissed the appeal for non- compliance.

6.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The proceedings before FAA was ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to various notices issued. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the offices of the FAA. We also noted that the FAA has simpliciter dismissed the appeal for non-compliance and not adjudicated or decided merits of the case. We find that appellate authority has no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for default of non-compliance without going into merits. The FAA is bound to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of assessee. This view of ours is supported by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Southern Steel Industries vs. AAC (CT), reported in [1996] 101 STC 273 (Mad). In term of the above, the order of FAA is set 4 -: aside and matter remanded back to his file for fresh adjudication on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.

7.

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

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →