EDWIN FERNANDO,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TUTICORIN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3598/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 January 2026AY 2018-19Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member), Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not discussed the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). During the hearing, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, nor was any adjournment petition filed. The authorities below had passed orders in the absence of the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly considered the merits of the case when passing the order, and whether an opportunity for hearing should be provided to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Hearing: 21.01.2026Pronounced: 27.01.2026

Year: 2018-19 Edwin Fernando, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 10A, First Street Nehru Colony, Ward 1(1), Kancheepuram, Pillayarpalayam S.O., Tuticorin 628 001. Kancheepuram 631 501. [PAN:AAAPF9501D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 27.01.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any adjournment petition. Thus, the 2 assessee called absent and set exparte. We proceed to hear the ld. DR and decide the appeal on merits.

3.

At the outset, it is noted that no compliance was made before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, both the authorities below have passed orders in the absence of the assessee. On perusal of the impugned order, it is noted that no discussion whatsoever made by the ld. CIT(A) on merits. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits taking into account the material available on record by affording an opportunity to the assessee. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →