NO. 4091 MALLASAMUDRAM PACCS LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAMAKKAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance and the resulting ex-parte orders but, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was conditioned upon the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a primary agricultural co-operative society, failed to file its return of income for AY 2018-19 and did not respond to notices issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The AO completed a best judgment assessment, and the FAA dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance.
What were the issues?
Whether the case should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication despite the assessee's non-compliance and ex-parte orders, and if so, under what conditions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 139(1),Section 119(2)(b),Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
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), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 26.06.2025, passed under
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. Further, we also notice that the assessment has been completed on best judgment assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s.144B of the Act.
The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that FAA had dismissed the appeal by passing an ex-parte order, on the ground that assessee did not respond to the hearing notices issued from the office of the FAA. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is a primary agricultural co-operative society. Initially, the assessee has not filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year 2018-19. Subsequently, in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income on 28.04.2022 declaring ‘Nil’ income after claiming deduction of Rs.22,48,477/- under Chapter VIA of the Act. The AO completed the assessment u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act on 27.02.2024 denying the claim of deduction under section VIA of the Act for the reason
Aggrieved by the assessment order passed u/s.144 r.w.s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (‘FAA’). The FAA had dismissed the appeal by passing an ex-parte order, on the ground that assessee did not respond to the hearing notices issued from the office of the FAA.
Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has raised multiple grounds on legal issues and on merits. The assessee has also raised additional grounds. However at the time of hearing, the Ld.AR for the assessee only submitted that since the order passed by the FAA and AO is ex-parte, 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 its case. The Ld.AR has also submitted that the assessee has filed application u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act on 11.09.2025 for condonation of delay in filing the return of income.
4 -: 6. 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.
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. 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, we are of the view that the matter ought to be restored to the files of the AO 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 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 AO. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee had filed application u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act before the CCIT, for condonation of delay in filing the return of income. The AO is directed to pass afresh order after the Competent Authority has passed the order regarding the assessee’s petition for
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16th September, 2025 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026