MURALI KANNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-22(1), TAMBARAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4127/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 February 2026AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal for non-compliance without considering the merits. The FAA is bound to decide the appeal on its merits even if the assessee is absent.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) for non-compliance with notices, without adjudicating on merits. The assessee argued that legal grounds were raised and sought an opportunity to present their case.

What were the issues?

Whether the FAA can dismiss an appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating on merits, and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 18.02.2026Pronounced: 19.02.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 12.12.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2020-21.

2 -: 2. At the very outset, we notice that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) is ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to the various notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. We also note that the FAA had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in-limine without adjudicating the issues on merits.

3.

The Ld.AR submitted that assessee has raised legal grounds before the FAA. However, the FAA has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance and not on merits. It was prayed, in the interest of justice and equity, assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case before the FAA.

4.

The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the FAA and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. However, she could not controvert the fact that the FAA has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance.

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 various notices issued. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the offices of the FAA. We 3 -: also noted that the FAA has simpliciter dismissed the appeal for non-compliance and not adjudicated or decided merits of the case. We find that appellate authority has no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for default of non-compliance without going into merits. The FAA is bound to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of assessee. This view of ours is supported by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Southern Steel Industries vs. AAC (CT), reported in [1996] 101 STC 273 (Mad). In term of the above, the order of FAA is set aside and matter remanded back to his file for fresh adjudication on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →