MANICKYAMPALEM BALAKRISHNAN DHIVYA,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI
आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘डी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ के, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सदèय के सम¢
BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND
SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 1573/CHNY/2025
िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2016-17
Ms. Manickyampalem
Balakrishnan Dhivya,
A-3, No.3,
Bhimsasena Murrays Gate Road,
Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. PAN: AFAPD 9513N
Vs.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Corporate Circle – 1(1),
Chennai.
(अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant)
(ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent)
अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Ms. A. Nikitha, Advocate for Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT
सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16.07.2025
घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 16.07.2025
आदेश/ O R D E R
PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal
Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 31.03.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant
Assessment Year is 2016-17. :- 2 -:
2. At the very outset, we notice that the order of First Appellate
Authority (FAA) is ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to the notices issued from the office of the First Appellate
Authority.
The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the FAA has issued three hearing notices. The first hearing notice was issued on 28.03.2024 requiring the assessee to furnish written submission along with evidence/documents on or before 29.03.2024. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not furnish the reply within one day. Later the assessee had changed her email id and updated the same in the e-portal. The Ld.AR further submitted that the last two hearing notices dated 12.03.2025 & 21.03.2025 (copy filed) issued from the office of FAA were sent to assessee’s old e-mail id, which was not in operation. Therefore, assessee has not received the hearing notices and hence, could not appear before the FAA. It was prayed that in the interest of justice and equity, the issue may be restored to the files of the FAA for proper representation of her case.
The ld.DR was duly heard. :- 3 -: 5. 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 notices issued. We find that the assessee has not received the hearing notices since the hearing notices were not sent to the assessee’s new e-mail id, which was updated in the e-portal. Therefore, 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 FAA. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the FAA for fresh adjudication. The FAA shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16th July, 2025 at Chennai. (एस.आर. रघुनाथा)
(S.R. RAGHUNATHA)
लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(जॉज[ जॉज[ के)
(GEORGE GEORGE K)
उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT
चे᳖ई/Chennai,
ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 16th July, 2025
RSR
:- 4 -:
आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant
Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Chennai 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR
गाड[ फाईल/GF.