Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a stay petition requesting a stay on an outstanding demand of Rs.19,09,372 for AY 2017-18. The assessee's AR stated that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte as they did not receive the hearing notices. The assessee claimed to be an NRI and unaware of the hearings.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with two notices. While deprecating the assessee's attitude, the Tribunal restored the matter to the FAA for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice and fair play, directing the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was valid without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and whether the appeal should be restored for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
आदेश /O R D E R
PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:
The assessee has filed this stay petition requesting for stay of outstanding demand of Rs.19,09,372/- for the assessment year 2017-18
When this stay petition was called for hearing, the Ld.AR for the assessee stated that the order passed by the CIT(A) is ex-parte
2 S.A No. 135/CHNY/2 and the assessee had not received the notice of hearing issued from the office of CIT(A). The Ld.AR further submitted that the CIT(A) had passed the order ex-parte without affording a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
We noted that the assessee is non-compliant before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) also passed the appellate order ex-parte. Since the order of CIT(A) is ex-parte, we are adjudicating the appeal along with the stay petition.
4. The appeal filed at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai, dated 28.11.2025 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 of CIT(A) is ex- parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to two notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority.
3 S.A No. 135/CHNY/2 The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is an NRI and the two hearing notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) were not received by the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was unaware of the hearing notices and hence, he could not appear 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 CIT(A) as a last opportunity for proper representation of his case.
The ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the office of the CIT(A) and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was prayed the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.
We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The proceedings before CIT(A) was ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to two notices issued. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the offices of the CIT(A) 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. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the FAA for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)
4 S.A No. 135/CHNY/2 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.
Since we have heard the appeal and decided, the Stay petition becomes infructuous and hence, dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd January, 2026 at Chennai.