AI Insights
The case involves Shri Vetrivel Senthilkumar, who filed a stay petition against an outstanding demand of Rs.1,50,24,243 for the assessment year 2018-19. The Income Tax Officer had passed an assessment order without considering the assessee's adjournment request, leading to an ex-parte order from the FAA. The assessee argued that he was unaware of the hearing notices due to a lack of real-time alerts, which prevented his appearance during the appellate proceedings. The tribunal, noting the ex-parte nature of the FAA's decision and the assessee's non-compliance, decided to restore the matter to the FAA for a fair hearing, emphasizing the need for the assessee to cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments.
Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668634 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Stay Application
Pronouncement Date
27-06-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2018-2019
Judgement Text
"अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ ᭠यायपीठ,चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ 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 S.A. No. 58/CHNY/2025 [In ITA No. 1800/CHNY/2025] & आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1800/CHNY/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Vetrivel Senthilkumar, No.13, Muppar Street, Balamurugan Kovil Road, Vadipatti, Madurai – 625 218. PAN: BAAPS 3641C vs The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward – 3, Madurai. (ᮧाथᭅक / Petitioner) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) ᮧाथᭅक कᳱ ओर से/Petitioner by : Ms. N.V. Narayanan, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Smt. Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 27.06.2025 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025 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.1,50,24,243/- for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. When this stay petition was called for hearing, the Ld.AR for the assessee stated that assessee had submitted partial information and 2 S.A No. 58/Chny/2025 ITA No.1800/CHNY/2025 filed evidences. The AO had issued several notices calling for various details and the assessee had requested for adjournment for the final notice issued by the AO. However, the AO had passed the assessment order without considering the adjournment request of the assessee. The Ld.AR further submitted that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) is ex-parte and there is no speaking order on merits. 3. We noted that the assessee is non-compliant before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and the FAA also passed the appellate order ex-parte by a non-speaking order. Since the order of FAA is ex-parte, we are adjudicating the appeal along with the stay petition. ITA No.1800/CHNY/2025 4. The 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 21.05.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19. 5. At the very outset, we notice that the order of First Appellate Authority (FAA) is ex-parte, since there was no compliance from the 3 S.A No. 58/Chny/2025 ITA No.1800/CHNY/2025 assessee to four notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. 6. The Ld.AR submitted that the hearing notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) were uploaded in the ITBA portal but not sent to the email id or there is no real time alert. 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 FAA as a last opportunity for proper representation of his case. 7. The ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the office of the FAA and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was prayed the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 8. 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. However, in the interest of justice 4 S.A No. 58/Chny/2025 ITA No.1800/CHNY/2025 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 FAA 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. 9. Since we have heard the appeal and decided, the Stay petition becomes infructuous and hence, dismissed. 10. 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 27th 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 चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated 27th June, 2025 RSR 5 S.A No. 58/Chny/2025 ITA No.1800/CHNY/2025 आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy to: 1. ᮧाथᭅक / Petitioner 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ /CIT, Madurai 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध/DR 5. गाडᭅ फाईल/GF. "
Mehul