What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted the consistent absence of the assessee and their representative despite numerous opportunities. Consequently, the tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A).

The assessee's appeal was filed for AY 2011-12. The tribunal granted multiple adjournments to the assessee, but no representation was made on their behalf on several hearing dates.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's failure to appear and represent their case before the tribunal despite multiple opportunities, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

L Supriya, Neyveli vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

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

Hearing: 27.07.2026Pronounced: 21.09.2026

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.3051/Chny/2025 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2011-12 L Supriya, Vs. The Income tax Officer, 310-Indira Nagar, Ward 2, Neyveli-607801, Coimbatore. Tamil Nadu India. [PAN: BETPS2515G]

(अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : None ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. Madhan Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 27.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 21.09.2026 : 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 18.08.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2011-12.

We find this appeal was filed on 31.10.2025 and Registry, ITAT Chennai Benches, issued notice dated 16.12.2025 by RPAD to the assessee intimating the fixation of date of hearing on 19.02.2026. On

2 I.T.A. No.3051/Chny/25

perusal of the order, we note that on such day Mr. Adhi Seshakumar, Adv. sought adjournment and accordingly it was adjourned to 18.03.2026. On 18.03.2026, we find no one appeared and it was adjourned to 06.04.2026. Again Mr. Adhi Seshakumar, Adv. appeared virtually and sought time and accordingly adjourned to 07.04.2026. We find on 07.04.2026 assessee herself filed adjournment application and considering the same, the appeal was adjourned to 10.06.2026 and we find no representation on behalf of the assessee on 10.06.2026. Again the matter was adjourned to 20.07.2026. We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application was filed on 27.07.2026 and assessee was called absent.

Ld. DR Mr. Madhan Kumar, Sr. DR, submits that there was no representation before the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) by the assessee. He argued that, in spite of many opportunities by the Tribunal, the assessee could not appear for compliance with the notices. He prayed to dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

Having heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant material available on record, as rightly pointed out by the Ld. DR, we find no representation whatsoever made before the AO and the Ld. CIT(A), and therefore, in spite of availing many opportunities, we find the assessee

3 I.T.A. No.3051/Chny/25

could not avail the same in representing her case before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we find no option except to confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in the absence of any compliance by the assessee. Thus, the order of the CIT(A) is justified, and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 21st September, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 21.09.2026 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 16:08:08 +05'30'

L SUPRIYA,NEYVELI vs. ITO, WARD-2, COIMBATORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments