SUBRAMANIYAM KULANDHAIVEL,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-1,, NAMAKKAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the FAA had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating on merits. It also condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the FAA for non-compliance, leading to a best judgment assessment under Section 144. The assessee claims to have been engaged in rig operations and unable to respond to notices. The appeal before the Tribunal was filed with a delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the FAA can dismiss an appeal for non-compliance without deciding on merits, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 253(6),Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Southern Steel Industries v. AAC (CT)25 citing101 STC 273 · 1996 · HC
- Dr. Ajith Kumar Pandey v. ITAT7 citing310 ITR 195 · 2009 · HC
- Rajakamal Polymers (P) Ltd. v. CIT7 citing291 ITR 314 · 2007 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal filed at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 09.12.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the Registry
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Syed Khaja Mohideen, Chennai vs ITO, Ncw-17(7), ChennaiChennai18 Sept 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Southern Steel Industries v. AAC (CT)
The Tribunal held that the FAA has no jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating on merits. The FAA is bound to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee.
- Chinnapaiya Gounder Manickam, Dharmapuri vs ITO Ward 1, DharmapuriChennai26 Jun 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Southern Steel Industries v. AAC (CT)
The Tribunal held that the FAA has no jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating on merits. The order of the FAA was set aside. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication, wit...
- Lakshmi Sriramulu, Chennai vs ITO, Ncw-22(6), TambaramChennai25 Jun 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Southern Steel Industries v. AAC (CT)
The Tribunal held that an appellate authority has no jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal for non-compliance without going into the merits. The FAA is bound to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee...
- Weaker Section and Tribal Rehabilitation… vs ACIT, Exemptions, CoimbatoreChennai23 Jun 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Southern Steel Industries v. AAC (CT)
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient reasons for the belated filing. It held that an appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal for non-compliance without considering the merits and that the FAA's order ...
- M/S. Tamil Nadu Trade Promotion… vs DCIT, ChennaiChennai10 Mar 2026Allowed
Also relies on Southern Steel Industries v. AAC (CT)
The Tribunal held that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) wrongly dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, despite the assessee's non-compliance with notices. The FAA has jurisdiction to decide appe...
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
