CHINNAPAIYA GOUNDER MANICKAM,DHARMAPURI V. ITO WARD 1, DHARMAPURI

ITA 705/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Chinnapaiya Gounder Manickam against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which was dated 20.01.2025. The FAA had dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee, who failed to respond to various notices. The original assessment was completed on a best judgment basis under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted the FAA's error in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits and emphasized the need for the appellate authority to decide on merits even in the absence of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 669492 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Southern Steel Industries vs. AAC (CT)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMANTHA MULLAMUDI
• Assessee Lawyers: G. AKASH
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ (एस एम सी), ᭠यायपीठ,चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ (SMC) BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी जॉजᭅ जॉजᭅ, उपा᭟यᭃ के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 705/CHNY/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Chinnapaiya Gounder Manickam, 259/1, Kerakodahalli Karimangalam Post, Dharmapuri – 635 111. PAN: AOOPM 2306M Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Dharmapuri. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri G. Akash, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Smt. Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 26.06.2025 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 26.06.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R This appeal filed at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.01.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. ITA No.705/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. At the very outset, I notice that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) is ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to the various notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. I also note that the FAA had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in-limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. Further, the assessment has been completed on best judgment assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. 3. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the FAA has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance and not on merits. The Ld.AR further submitted that since the assessee had not filed the return of income or furnished the details within the time given, the assessment was completed on best judgment assessment. It was prayed, in the interest of justice and equity, assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case before the FAA. 4. The Ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the FAA & the AO and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. However, she could not controvert the fact that the FAA has dismissed the appeal for non- compliance. ITA No.705/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: 5. I have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The proceedings before FAA was ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to various notices issued. I strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the offices of the FAA. I also noted that the FAA has simpliciter dismissed the appeal for non-compliance and not adjudicated or decided merits of the case. I find that appellate authority has no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for default of non-compliance without going into merits. The FAA is bound to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of assessee. This view of mine is supported by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Southern Steel Industries vs. AAC (CT), reported in [1996] 101 STC 273 (Mad). In term of the above, the order of FAA is set aside. 6. Further, I note that the assessment has also been completed on best judgment basis u/s.144 of the Act. In the interest of justice and fair play, I’m of the view that the matter ought to be restored to the files of the AO. 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. ITA No.705/Chny/2025 :- 4 -: 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th June, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- ((जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 26th June, 2025 RSR आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Chennai 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. "