RANGANAYAKI,TIRUPPUR V. ITO WARD 2(5), TIRUPPUR, TIRUPPUR

ITA 349/CHNY/2026

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Ms. Ranganayaki against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The appeals were initially delayed due to the assessee's lack of awareness and inability to respond to notices, attributed to her illiteracy and unfamiliarity with electronic communication. The Tribunal condoned the delay and proceeded to address the appeals on their merits. The primary contention was the FAA's dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance without considering the substantive issues, which the Tribunal found to be procedurally incorrect.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847352 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Chennai
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2026
• 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: BIPIN C.N
• Assessee Lawyers: B. RAMAKRISHNAN
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘सी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं सुĮी पɮमावती एस, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND MS PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 349 & 350/CHNY/2026 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Ranganayaki, 200, Sathiram, Govindapuram, Dharapuram, Tiruppur – 638 657 PAN: BREPR 1418P Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Tiruppur. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA (Through Virtual Mode) ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Bipin C.N. CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19.03.2026 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 23.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two different orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, both dated 20.02.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.349 & 350/Chny/2026 :- 2 -: 2. There is a delay of 272 days in filing both the appeals. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. It is submitted that the assessee is a daily wager, illiterate, and has no knowledge of income-tax proceedings. It was further contended that the assessee is not conversant with operating emails or any other form of electronic communication and, therefore, remained unaware of the notices issued by the First Appellate Authority as well as the appellate order passed. It has been stated that the assessee came to know of the appellate order only upon attachment of her bank account, pursuant to which she took immediate steps to file the present appeal, resulting in the delay. On perusal of the reasons stated, we are of the view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of these appeals. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits. ITA 349/CHNY/2026 3. 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 notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. We also note that the FAA had dismissed the Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.349 & 350/Chny/2026 :- 3 -: appeal of the assessee in-limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. 4. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a daily wager, illiterate, and has no knowledge of income-tax proceedings, and therefore could not comply with the proceedings before the AO as well as the FAA. The Ld. AR further submitted that the FAA has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating the issues on merits. It was thus prayed that, in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to present her case before the AO, so as to enable the assessee to substantiate her claim with the necessary details. 5. 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. 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The proceeding before FAA was ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to the notice issued. We also noted that the FAA has simpliciter dismissed the appeal for non-compliance Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.349 & 350/Chny/2026 :- 4 -: 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. Further, the Ld.AR had submitted that complete details could not be submitted at the time of assessment proceedings and undertakes that he will appear before the AO and submit the necessary details as and when called for. In light of the submissions of the Ld.AR and in the interest of justice and fair play, we 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 furnish the required details and co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.349 & 350/Chny/2026 :- 5 -: ITA No.350/CHNY/2026 7. The assessee has filed this appeal against the appellate order confirming the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act. Since, we have already set aside the quantum appeal in ITA No.349/CHNY/2025 to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication, we deem it appropriate to set aside the penalty order to the files of the AO to decide along with the quantum appeal afresh. It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd March, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (पɮमावती एस) (PADMAVATHY S) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 23rd March, 2026 RSR आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Coimbatore 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. By Order Printed from counselvise.com REKHA SENTHIL RAJ Digitally signed by REKHA SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.03.24 14:50:32 +05'30' "