What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) due to the assessee's absence and lack of evidence. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed for failing to provide any justification.

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 73 days, which was condoned. The assessee failed to appear for hearings and did not provide any explanation or paper book. The Assessing Officer made an addition based on seized cash, and the CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal by considering some agricultural income.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is justified in the absence of any explanation or evidence from the assessee, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Marimuthu Govindaraju, Thanjavur vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Hearing: 23.06.2026Pronounced: 27.07.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ◌, लेखा सद� के सम% Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 178/Chny/2026 िनधा&रण वष&/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marimuthu Govindaraju, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 97B South Street, Senthangadu, Ward-1, Thanjavur – 614 901. Thanjavur – 613 006. [PAN: AUZPG-2350-A] (अपीलाथ(/Appellant) ()*थ(/Respondent) अपीलाथ( की ओर से / Appellant by : None )*थ( की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Swarnalatha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 23.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 27.07.2026 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 (Appeals), Chennai-18, for the assessment year 2017-18.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 73 days. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons to condone the said delay. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we

:-2-: ITA No: 178/Chny/2026

find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really

prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, delay of 73

days condoned.

We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any

application filed seeking adjournment. On an examination of the record,

we find that the assessee filed the appeal on 13.01.2026 and after

scrutiny the Registry vide ITAT, Chennai Benches fixed the appeal for

hearing on 21.04.2026 and intimated the same to assessee vide notice

dated 17.03.2026. Further, the record shows that the notice was

returned with an postal acknowledgement dated 24.03.2026 stating no such person in address. Further, it is noted from order sheet entry that

there was no appearance of assessee on 21.04.2026 and the appeal

was adjourned to 23.06.2026 with a direction to Registry to issue another

notice through RPAD. Accordingly, the Registry, ITAT issued another

notice on 04.05.2026 intimating the fixation of appeal for hearing on

23.06.2026. On 23.06.2026, the assessee called absent and we proceed to hear the ld.DR, Ms. Swarnalatha, Addl.CIT, and decide the

issue by considering the relevant material available on record.

:-3-: ITA No: 178/Chny/2026

At the outset, it is noted that assessee is an individual derives

income from agricultural activity. The assessee filed return of income

on 10.09.2018 declaring a total income of Rs. Nil. According to the AO,

based on the complaint said to be received on 07.05.2016 through

online, a flying squad -178, Pattukkottai Assembly Constituency seized

Rs.49,07,000/- from the assessee on 12.05.2016. The AO under

scrutiny sought explanation from the assessee in response to which

assessee offered explanation which is reproduced in page no.2 of the

assessment order. The AO examined said explanation but found not

acceptable by recording his reasons in para no.6(1) to 6(3) of

assessment order. The ld.CIT(A) given benefit on agricultural income of 50% at Rs.7,26,850/- as against aggregate income claimed by the

assessee at Rs.14,53,700/-. We find the ld.CIT(A) did not accept

telescoping of the said income and confirmed the remaining addition of

Rs.41,80,150/- stating no explanation was offered. Before us, as

discussed above, the assessee remained absent on both the occasions

and we find no explanation whatsoever by way of paper book were filed before us. Therefore, in the absence of any evidences, we find no

infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) and it is justified. Thus, grounds

raised by the assessee are dismissed.

:-4-: ITA No: 178/Chny/2026

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 27th July, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 27.07.2026 JPV आदेश की )ितिलिप अ0ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ(/Appellant, 2.)*थ(/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु1/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय )ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड& फाईल/GF

Digitally signed by PRASANNA PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.07.30 10:44:38 +05'30'

MARIMUTHU GOVINDARAJU,THANJAVUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THANJAVUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments