FC2743 MELKUMARAMANGALAM PACCS LTD.,CUDDALORE vs. ITO, WARD-4, CUDDALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1975/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 September 2026AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) due to the assessee's consistent non-compliance and lack of submissions or evidence. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) despite receiving notices. The AO made additions under Section 69A based on available material.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)'s order confirming additions under Section 69A is justified when the assessee failed to provide any submissions or evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Hearing: 20.07.2026Pronounced: 18.09.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी इंटूरी रामाराव, लेखा सद� एवं �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� के सम� । Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1975/Chny/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2019-20 FC2743 Melkumaramangalam Primary Vs. The Income tax Officer, Agricultural Coop Credit Society Ward 4, Limited, Cuddalore. Melkumaramangalam Post Thiruthuraiyur Via, Panruti, Cuddalore 607205, Tamil Nadu. [PAN: AAATF3482D]

(अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : None ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Premi, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 20.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 18.09.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2019-20.

2.

We note that this appeal was filed on 06.04.2026 and, after scrutiny, the Registry, ITAT, Chennai Benches, issued notice dated 09.06.2026 by RPAD, to the assessee intimating the fixation of the date of hearing on 20.07.2026. When the matter was called on 20.07.2026, we

2 I.T.A. No.1975/Chny/26

find no representation on behalf of the assessee, nor was any letter filed seeking adjournment. The assessee was called absent and we proceed to hear the Ld. DR, Ms. Premi, Sr. AR, and pass the order based on the material available on record.

3.

We find that the assessee raised ground Nos. 1 to 6 challenging the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”).

4.

The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee made no representation before the AO in response to the statutory notice during the assessment proceedings. The AO concluded the assessment proceedings based on the material available on record and in the absence of any submissions made by the assessee in support of its claim. Before the Ld. CIT(A) also, the assessee remained absent and no compliance whatsoever was made by the assessee in response to the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A). She submitted that there being no evidence even before this ITAT, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be confirmed.

5.

Having heard the Ld. DR and on perusal of the record, we note that the Ld. DR is correct in stating that no compliance whatsoever was made by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, as is evident from para Nos. 3.4 to 3.4.3A of the assessment order. Further, on perusal of the impugned order, we note that no compliance was made before the appellate authority also, which is evident from para Nos. 6.2.4, 6.3.4 and 6.4.2 of the impugned order. Therefore, we find force in the arguments of the Ld. DR for confirming the order of the Ld. CIT(A), there being no submissions or evidence supporting the claims made by the assessee.

3 I.T.A. No.1975/Chny/26

Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is justified and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 18th September, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 18.09.2026 MM/- आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.

MANISH Digitally signed by MANISH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2026.09.23 14:45:48 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →