What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the hearing notices were sent to the assessee's old email ID, which was not in operation, leading to non-receipt of notices. Therefore, the matter was restored to the FAA for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal was directed against an order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) proceedings were ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the FAA is sustainable when the assessee did not receive the hearing notices due to an incorrect email ID on record.

Manickyampalem Balakrishnan Dhivya vs DCIT | ITAT Chennai 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 16.07.2025Pronounced: 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.

MANICKYAMPALEM BALAKRISHNAN DHIVYA,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments