PALANI RAGAVENDRAN,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO, WARD-1, , TIRUVANNAMALAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4026/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the FAA, finding the assessee's reason for unawareness of the order to be reasonable. The Tribunal set aside the FAA's order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices and a delay in filing. The assessee claimed to be unaware of the assessment order as no physical communication was received, leading to a delay of 117 days in filing the appeal before the FAA. The assessment itself was completed under best judgment assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the FAA was to be condoned, and whether the matter should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 17.02.2026Pronounced: 18.02.2026

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 04.10.2025 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 notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. The FAA had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits. The FAA held that there is a delay of 116 days in filing the appeal before him and there is no reasonable cause for condoning the same. Further, we also notice that the assessment has been completed on best judgment assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act.

3.

On perusing the order of FAA, we noted that the assessee in Form 35 has stated the reason for delay, that the assessee is unaware of the assessment order being passed by the AO since no physical communication was received. The assessee became aware of the order being passed only on receipt of call from Income-tax office directing the assessee to pay outstanding tax arrears and immediately, he filed appeal before FAA, which resulted in delay of 117 days. However, the FAA rejected the assessee’s request for condonation by holding that there is no reasonable cause and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In our view, the reason cited by assessee before FAA seems quite reasonable and hence, we condone the delay before FAA.

3 -: Therefore, we set aside the order of FAA. We also note that the order passed by the AO is also best judgment since assessee has not responded to the notices issued from the office of the AO. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the offices of the FAA and the AO. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the matter ought to be restored to the files of the AO as a last opportunity. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 18th February, 2026 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →