What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the merits of the case and had focused only on the delay in filing. The Tribunal set aside the order and directed the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the appeal after giving due opportunity.

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the assessment order. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with statutory notices. The assessee challenged this order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal on merits when it was dismissed for non-compliance with notices, and if the assessee was given adequate opportunity.

Subbiah Karthika, Sankarankoil vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & HON’BLE SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA

Hearing: 25.03.2025Pronounced: 23.04.2025

Subbiah Karthika, Income Tax Officer, No.30, Pro.Suryaa Solar Power System Ward-2, Subbaih Pillai Building, Sankarankoil, Tirunelveli Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu-6227756. [PAN: CSKPK9570K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri.Rajesh, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Smt.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / APL / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1070164202(1) dated 07.11.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), for the assessment years 2017-18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assessee has challenged order u/s 250 dated 07.11.2024 passed by Addl/JCIT Prayagraj.

2.0 At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assesse informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 18.12.2019. The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance to the statutory notices issued by the Ld. First Appellate Authority.

3.0 The Ld. DR has relied upon the order of lower authorities.

4.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is trite law that no litigant benefits by non- prosecution of its case. The Ld. CIT(A) has recorded that it had issued several notices which remained non-complied. Para 8.1 of the order shows that only three notices were issued between February 2021 to October-2024. We have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of delayed filing by the assesse the Ld. CIT(A) has not adequately touched upon merits of the case. Accordingly, the order of lower authorities is set aside and the Ld.CIT(A) is directed to readjudicate the appeal after giving due opportunity of being heard and by passing a speaking order. All the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Page - 2 - of 3

SUBBIAH KARTHIKA,SANKARANKOIL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TIRUNELVELI

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