Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed belatedly by 135 days due to the assessee undergoing bypass surgery and issues with electronic notice delivery, which went to spam. The lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without proper opportunity to the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the AO and that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) also violated principles of natural justice. Following the Supreme Court's decision in TIN Box Co. v. CIT, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities violated the principles of natural justice and whether the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable.
Sections Cited
IT Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & MS. PADMAVATHY. S
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 10.06.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2017-18.
2. At the outset, it is noted that the appeal is filed belatedly by ‘135’ days; and for condoning the delay, the assessee is noted to have filed an affidavit along with an application for condoning the delay. Having gone through the contents of the affidavit/application, it is noted that the (AY 2017-18) Dinesh Enterprises :: 2 ::
1. assessment order was passed on 19.12.2019 and the assessee had filed an appeal promptly before the Ld.CIT(A) on 14.01.2020 which got migrated to Faceless Regime and the assessee was in the dark about the ongoing proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) which resulted in passing of ex- parte order qua assessee dated 10.06.2025, which fact, assessee came to know only on 07.01.2026, when the AO attached the assessee’s bank account with the Canara Bank & ICICI Bank. It has also been stated that the assessee had undergone bypass surgery on 24.03.2025 and discharged only on 03.04.2025 due to the foresaid reasons, assessee pleaded for condoning the delay. Even though, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to consider the overall facts of the case, we are of the view that there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay and so, we condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits.
3. As noted supra, the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is ex parte order qua assessee, since assessee was not aware of the notices issued to him through the electronic mode may be due to glitches in the internet/system and the notices got served in the ‘spam’ account of the assessee. Be that as it may. There is violation of natural justice and therefore, for the interest of justice and fair play, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A). At this juncture, the Ld.AR also brought to our notice that the AO has passed ex parte order qua assessee and prayed that assessee be given an opportunity before the (AY 2017-18) Dinesh Enterprises :: 3 ::
AO, so that assessee would be able to file all the details about the cash deposits made in the bank accounts. Considering the fact that the assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the AO, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), we are inclined to allow the plea of assessee to remit the assessment back to AO for fresh assessment. In TIN Box Co. supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
It is unnecessary to go into great detail in these matters for there is a statement in the order of the Tribunal, the fact-finding authority, that reads thus :
"We will straightaway agree with the assessee's submission that the Income-tax Officer had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard."
That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal is really of no consequence for it is the assessment order that counts. That order must be made after the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of selling out his case. We, therefore, do not agree with the Tribunal and the High Court that it was not necessary to set aside the order of assessment and remand the matter to the assessing authority for fresh assessment after giving to the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
Two questions were placed before the High Court, of which the second question is not pressed.
The first question reads thus:
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not setting aside the assessment order in spite of a finding arrived at by it that the Income-tax Officer had not given a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee?"
In our opinion, there can only be one answer to this question which is inherent in the question itself: in the negative and in favour of the asses- see.
5. The appeals are allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The assessment order, that of the Commissioner (Appeals) and of the Tribunal are also set aside. The matter shall now be remanded to the assessing authority for fresh consideration, as aforestated. No order as to costs.
4. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. (supra), we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. The Ld.AR has undertaken to file all the relevant documents to substantiate the claim before the AO. The AO is directed to frame fresh assessment in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 11th day of February, 2026, in Chennai.