MURALI KANNAN,CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW-22(1), TAMBARAM

ITA 4127/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Murali Kannan against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The FAA had dismissed the appeal in limine due to non-compliance by the assessee in responding to various notices, without adjudicating on the merits. The Tribunal found that the FAA erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of non-compliance and not on the substantive issues raised. The Tribunal referenced a decision by the Honble High Court of Madras to support their view that the FAA must decide on the merits even in the absence of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837518 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2025
• 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: V. ASWATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: T.VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘डी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी इंटूरȣ रामा राव, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 4127/CHNY/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Murali Kannan, No.7B-1, Kannappan Street, Kancheepuram – 631 501. PAN: AFTPM 8447H Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward -22(1), Tambaram (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 12.12.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2020-21. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4127/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. At the very outset, we 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. 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 assessee has raised legal grounds before the FAA. However, 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 his case before the FAA. 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, she 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. The proceedings before FAA was ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to various notices issued. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the offices of the FAA. We Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4127/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: also noted that the FAA has simpliciter dismissed the appeal 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 FAA 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 19th February, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (इंटूरȣ रामा राव) (INTURI RAMA RAO) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 19th February, 2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4127/Chny/2025 :- 4 -: 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. Printed from counselvise.com "