THE MUSIRI TALUK AGRICULTURAL CO-OP MKTG. SOCIETY LTD.,TIRUCHIRAPPALLI vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), TIRUCHIRAPALLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1407/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 September 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Ld.CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and lacked details regarding notices issued. Finding a violation of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the appeal to the Ld.CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an ex parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee claimed they did not receive any notices from the Ld.CIT(A)'s office, hence could not respond.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld.CIT(A) order passed ex parte without proper service of notice and due opportunity of being heard is sustainable? Whether a de novo adjudication is required?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA

Hearing: 15.07.2025Pronounced: 04.09.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

1.

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)‘), Delhi, dated 11.04.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY‘) 2014-15.

2.

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order, merely because that the assessee didn’t respond to his notice. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee didn’t receive any notices from the office of the Ld.CIT(A), therefore, they couldn’t respond to it and therefore, prayed for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A).

3.

Per Contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to interfere with the action of the Ld.CIT(A) since the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the office of the Ld.CIT(A).

4.

Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, it is noted that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order. It is also noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has made a bald statement that despite issuance of several notices, the assessee failed to respond without specifying the details of the notices he has purportedly sent to assessee; and further, the Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have passed a cryptic order confirming the action of the AO. We don’t countenance such an action of the Ld.CIT(A) for the reason that there is per-se violation of natural justice, when the assessee’s claim is that it didn’t receive any notice from Ld CIT(A)’s office. Therefore, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to assessee. Hence, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to his file with a direction to decide the legal issue as well as grounds on merits by passing a speaking order as contemplated under sub-section (6) of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘). The assessee is directed to file all the relevant documents including written submission before the Ld.CIT(A) and diligently participate in the appellate proceedings and the Ld.CIT(A), if necessary may call for remand report and pass orders on the legal issue as well as on merits in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.

5.

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

Order pronounced on the 04th day of September, 2025, in Chennai.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →