KASI PANDIYAN MUTHU RAMALINGAM,TIRUNELVELI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -4, TIRUNELVELI

ITA 990/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Kasi Pandiyan Muthu against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, which dismissed his appeal for non-compliance with procedural notices. The assessee's representative argued that the non-compliance was due to the assessee's lack of technical savvy and inability to access emails. The Tribunal noted that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) had dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, which is against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal referenced a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras to support its view that the FAA must decide on the merits even in the absence of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668759 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Southern Steel Industries vs. AAC (CT) [1996] 101 STC 273 (Mad)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KUMAR CHANDAN
• Assessee Lawyers: R.S. LAKSHMI NARAYANA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘ए’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 990/CHNY/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year:2018-19 Shri Kasi Pandiyan Muthu, 5A, Kasi Illam, Senthil Nagar, Sankar Nagar, Tirunelveli – 627 357. PAN: AMIPM 8155A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Tirunelveli (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Ms. R.S. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Kumar Chandan, JCIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: 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 24.03.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19. - 2 - ITA No.990/CHNY/2025 2. At the very outset, we notice that the First Appellate Authority’s (FAA) order is ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to the four notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. We also note that the FAA had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in-limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee could not respond to the notices or appear before FAA during the appellate proceedings since the assessee was not tech savvy and not accessed the mails. The Ld.AR further submitted that the FAA has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance and not on merits. It was prayed, in the interest of justice and equity, assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present its case before the AO. 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. However, he could not controvert the fact that the FAA has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance. 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We noted that the FAA has simpliciter dismissed the appeal - 3 - ITA No.990/CHNY/2025 for non-compliance and not adjudicated or decided merits of the case. We 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 ours 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 CIT(A)-NFAC is set aside and matter remanded back to his file for fresh adjudication on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard 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 23rd June, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एस.आर. रघुनाथा) (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चेÛनई/Chennai, Ǒदनांक/Dated, the 23rd June, 2025 RSR - 4 - ITA No.990/CHNY/2025 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Madurai 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. "