BHAVARIBAI, L/H. AJEETHRAJ CHORDIA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-4(5), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1432/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 August 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A)'s action of passing an ex parte order without hearing the assessee violated principles of natural justice. The order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex parte by the Ld.CIT(A) due to non-response to notices. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices due to technical glitches. The Tribunal noted that the Ld.CIT(A) passed the order without hearing the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex parte order without hearing the assessee, and if such an order violates principles of natural justice.

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: 25.08.2025

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 “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 17.03.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2012-13.

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 qua assessee.

1. According to the Ld.AR, the Ld.CIT(A) had issued notices on two (2) occasions on 20.02.2025 & 28.02.2025 and thereafter on 10.03.2025 and finding no response had passed the order on 17.03.2025. Thus, according to the Ld.AR, within ‘45’ days, the whole exercise of issuing notices and dismissal of appeal happened. According to the Ld.AR, assessee didn’t receive any notices may be due to technical glitches in the internet. Therefore, he was prevented from participating in the proceedings. Hence, prayed for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A).

3.

Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee.

4.

Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the aforesaid submissions and after going through the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), we find that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal only on the ground that the assessee didn’t respond to his three (3) notices, within a period of ‘45’ days. In this regard, the Ld.AR brought to our notice that due to technical glitches, the assessee wasn’t aware of the notices which may have gone to the ‘spam’ account, which led to the Ld.CIT(A) passing the impugned order. Be that as it may, we note that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order, without hearing the assessee which is in violation of natural justice. Therefore, we don’t countenance the action of the Ld.CIT(A) since he was duty bound to pass (AY 2012-13) Bhavaribai order in accordance with sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by passing a reason order on the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Having not done so, we set aside the same and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the grounds of appeal in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.

5.

The Ld.AR has undertaken to appear and file all the relevant documents/written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A) and present their case without fail, which we expect him to do.

6.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →