Kerala High Court Quashes Order Dismissing Actor Jayasurya's Income Tax Appeal Over Non-Appearance

The Kerala High Court has quashed an order dismissing Malayalam actor Jayasurya's (Jayan Vathakkattu Moni) income tax appeal solely because he failed to appear for the hearing despite notices being issued on four occasions.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. held that an appellant's non-appearance cannot, by itself, be a ground to dismiss an appeal without considering the grounds raised in it.

The court was hearing a plea challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal before the appellate authority was against an assessment order dated December 17, 2024.

The appellate authority rejected the appeal by an order dated March 26, 2026, after noting that Jayasurya had failed to appear for the hearing despite notices being issued on four occasions.

Jayasurya approached the High Court challenging the appellate order, contending that the authority had rejected his appeal without referring to any of the grounds raised in it.

The Revenue opposed the plea, submitting that Jayasurya had not produced documents to substantiate the grounds raised in the appeal.

The High Court, however, found merit in the actor's contention. It noted that the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal solely because he failed to appear for the hearing despite notices being issued on four occasions.

The Court held that even in the absence of an appellant, the appellate authority is not empowered to dismiss an appeal on that ground alone.

The Court referred to Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which requires the appellate authority to frame the points for determination and provide reasons for its decision.

“Thus, it is obligatory for the appellate authority to pass an order by referring to the grounds raised in the appeal, irrespective of the question whether, the appellant appears before the appellate authority or not,” the Court observed.

The Court found that the appellate authority had not undertaken this exercise and therefore held that the order did not comply with the statutory requirements under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the appellate order and directed the first appellate authority to reconsider Jayasurya's appeal and pass fresh orders after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

For Jayasurya: K. Manoj Chandran, K. Srikumar (Senior Advocate), Ammu Charles and Arundhathi K., Advocates.

For the Revenue: Grace Tom and Jose Joseph, Standing Counsel