ANANTHAKRISHNAN RADHAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-3(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers

ITA 844/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 June 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)1 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the ex parte orders violated natural justice, as the assessee was incapacitated due to his wife's death. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee, in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against ex parte orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in both quantum and penalty matters for AY 2015-16. The assessee contended that he could not respond to the notices, which were issued after the demise of his seriously ill wife on 10.04.2024.

What were the issues?

Whether ex parte orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) should be set aside due to a violation of natural justice, given the assessee's personal circumstances, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

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, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA

Hearing: 03.06.2025Pronounced: 18.06.2025

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 20.06.2024 (quantum appeal) & order dated 06.01.2025 (penalty appeal) for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2015-16.

& 845/Chny/2025 (AY 2015-16) Ananthakrishnan Radhakrishnan :: 2 ::

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex parte orders in both the quantum appeal as well as the penalty appeal. According to the Ld.AR, assessee’s wife (Smt. K.

Radha Kumari) was seriously ill and therefore, the assessee was looking after her in the hospital and later she succumbed to the illness and died on 10.04.2024. According to the Ld.AR, notices were issued by the Ld.CIT(A) on 12.04.2024 i.e. after two days of demise of his wife and therefore, he was not able to respond to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore, prayed for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A).

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

Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in both quantum appeal as well as penalty appeal are ex parte orders because assessee didn’t participate in the appellate proceedings despite three (3) notices were issued by the First Appellate Authority. In this regard, we note that one of the notices was issued on 12.04.2024. It has been brought to our notice that assessee’s wife Smt. Radha Kumari was suffering from chronic illness and she passed away on 10.04.2024 [Death Certificate enclosed].

Therefore, assessee was not in a position to reply to the notices issued by & 845/Chny/2025 (AY 2015-16) Ananthakrishnan Radhakrishnan the Ld.CIT(A). Be that as it may, the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) are ex parte orders and therefore, there is violation of natural justice and therefore, we set aside the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeals back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to pass orders in accordance with sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) after hearing the assessee in accordance to law. The assessee is directed to be diligent and file all the relevant documents to support the grounds of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 18th day of June, 2025, in Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →