SUNDARAM GNANASEKARAN,NAGAPATTINAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, NAGAPATTINAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(A)'s ex parte order violated natural justice as proper notice was not served. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the appeal to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex parte by the Ld.CIT(A) for AY 2019-20. The assessee claims that notices were not properly served via email, and were only uploaded on the e-portal, which they argue does not satisfy Section 282 of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is valid when there was a failure to properly serve notice on the assessee as per Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
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 “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 17.01.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2019-20.
The main grievance of the assessee is that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex parte order qua assessee without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal raised before him. According to the Ld.AR, the Ld.CIT(A) notes to have issued notices on three (3) occasions, but those notices have never been served on the e-mail account of the assessee.
Instead, it has simply been uploaded on the e-portal, which according to the Ld.AR does not satisfy the provisions of Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘). Therefore, according to the Ld.AR, the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) is bad in law.
Therefore, the Ld.AR prayed for one more opportunity before Ld CIT(A) and also undertakes to appear and file all the relevant documents before the Ld.CIT(A) and also the Ld.AR furnished his contact details which are as under: e-mail Id: ananth@margh.in
Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee.
We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record and note that the Ld.CIT(A) has issued three (3) notices and finding no response from the assessee, has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In this regard, the Ld.AR brought to our notice that there was no service of notice in assessee’s e-mail account as shown in Form No.35.
And that the assessee was astonished to find that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee didn’t appear.
According to the assessee, he was in the dark about the appellate proceedings going on against him. Be that as it may, we find that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is ex parte order qua assessee. Since there is a violation of natural justice, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the grounds of appeal as per sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, after hearing the assessee. The assessee is directed to be diligent and participate in the appellate proceedings and file all the relevant documents to support the grounds of appeal raised before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) to pass a speaking order in accordance to law after serving notice as per section 282 of the Act as well as to the Ld.AR to avoid such a plea in future.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 282
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Mohd. Abrar, Bulandshahar vs ITO Ward 2(3)(2), BulandshaharITA 8343/DEL/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Ram Chandar Jaisawal, Siddhartha Nagar vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 861/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Kavithak, Coimbatore vs Non Coop Ward4(3), CoimbaotoreITA 2258/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- All Indian Ski & Hide Tanners and Merchants… vs CIT(E), ChennaiITA 2115/CHNY/2026[2027-28]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2027-28
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
