SUBBU GNANA SEKAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-6(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4066/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 February 2026AY 2017-18Bench: 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 noted the assessee's non-compliance with FAA notices and deprecated the nonchalant attitude. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, the matter was restored to the files of the FAA as a last opportunity for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a senior citizen, filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) in 2020. The proceedings before the FAA were ex-parte because the assessee did not comply with the notices issued. The assessee failed to take note of hearing notices, leading to non-appearance and inability to represent the case.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the FAA due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices should be set aside and the matter restored for fresh adjudication?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

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: 17.02.2026

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 29.10.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.

At the very outset, we notice that the order passed by 2. 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.

3.

The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and has filed the appeal before FAA in the year 2020. The Ld.AR further submitted that the first hearing notice was issued during 2021 for which assessee has sought adjournment and the last three hearing notices were issued simultaneously one after other in the year 2025, which the assessee had failed to take note. Therefore, the assessee could not represent his case before the FAA during the appellate proceedings. Hence, it was prayed in the interest of justice and equity, the issue may be restored to the files of the FAA as a last opportunity for proper representation of the case.

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. Therefore, it was prayed the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

5.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The proceeding before the FAA was ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and has failed to take note of the hearing notices resulting in non-appearance before the FAA. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the office of the FAA. 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 FAA as a last opportunity. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the FAA for fresh adjudication. The FAA 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.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 17th February, 2026 at Chennai.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →