CHITTI BABU,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, VELLORE
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ यायपीठ, चे ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ी एबी टी. वक
, ाियक सद एवं
एवं
एवं
एवं
ी अिमताभ शुा, लेखा सद के सम
BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1405/Chny/2025
िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: 2018-19
Chitti Babu,
C/o. DURV & Associates LLP,
No.10/80, AVM Avenue 3rd Street,
Virugambakkam,
Chennai-600 092. v.
The ITO,
Ward-2,
Vellore.
[PAN: CARPB 1350 F]
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)
(यथ/Respondent)
अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by :
Mr.S. Dwarakesh, CA
यथ क ओर से /Respondent by :
Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
सुनवाईकतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
16.07.2025
घोषणाकतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
25.08.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
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 20.01.2025 for the Assessment
Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY‘) 2018-19. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee pointed out that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order. According to the Ld.AR, the Ld.CIT(A) taking note that the assessee didn’t reply to his five
Chitti Babu
:: 2 ::
(5) notices, has dismissed the appeals of the assessee without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal raised before him. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee didn’t receive any notices from the office of the Ld.CIT(A) may be due to glitches in the Internet and therefore, prayed for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A). Further, the Ld.AR pointed out that assessee had raised legal issue before the Ld.CIT(A) but the same has not been dealt by the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, he prayed for one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to assail the action of the AO both on legal ground as well as on merits.
3. Per Contra, the Ld.DR does not want us to interfere with the action of the Ld.CIT(A) because the assessee didn’t respond to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A).
4. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) is ex parte qua assessee.
It is noted that the AO has reopened the assessment of the assessee and has passed order by making addition of ₹70,54,338/- by order dated
15.03.2023; and the assessee is noted to have filed appeal against the action of the AO wherein the assessee inter-alia has challenged the validity of the reopening of assessment made by the AO which has not been dealt by the Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal on the ground that assessee failed to respond to his notices. The assessee attributes the Chitti Babu
:: 3 ::
failure to respond to non-receipt of notices from the Ld.CIT(A)’s office. Be that as it may, since the Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex parte order against the assessee, we find that there is per-se violation of natural justice and therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to his file with a direction to adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee [both legal and on merits] and to decide the same in accordance to Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘). The assessee is also directed to file relevant documents as well as written submissions in support of grounds of appeal without fail and the Ld.CIT(A) to pass speaking order and if necessary, call for Remand Report.
5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 25th day of August, 2025, in Chennai. (अिमताभ शुा)
(AMITABH SHUKLA)
लेखा सदय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (एबी टी. वक
)
(ABY T. VARKEY)
याियक सदय/JUDICIAL MEMBER
चे ई/Chennai,
!दनांक/Dated: 25th August, 2025. TLN
आदेश क ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ /Appellant
2. थ /Respondent
3. आयकरआयु/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore.
4. िवभागीयितिनिध/DR
5. गाड फाईल/GF