MUTHUR DURAIYAN THANGAVEL,ERODE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, ERODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 204/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 July 20264 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who confirmed the AO's action of adopting a GP ratio of 4.18% on turnover. Ample opportunities were given to the assessee, but no submissions were made.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, but failed to appear for multiple hearings despite receiving notices. The Assessing Officer (AO) and Commissioner (Appeals) also issued notices for which no submissions were made by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT should proceed to decide the appeal on merits when the assessee fails to appear and make submissions despite repeated opportunities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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. 204/Chny/2026 िनधा&रण वष&/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Muthur Duraiyan Thangavel, Vs. DCIT, 27/2 Prop Sri Royal Petroleum, Circle -1, Royal Transports and Royal Travels Erode. Kongunagar, Sathyamangalam, Erode – 638 401. [PAN: AOSPT-1888-H] (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 18.11.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2023-24.

:-2-: ITA No: 204/Chny/2026

2.

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 14.01.2026 and after

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

hearing on 22.04.2026 and intimated the same to assessee vide notice

dated 17.03.2026. Further, the record shows that the assessee received

the said notice on 20.03.2026, proof of receipt is on record vide postal

acknowledgement dated 22.04.2026. Further, it is noted from order

sheet entry that there was no appearance of assessee on 22.04.2026

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 intimating the fixation of appeal for hearing on

23.06.2026. On 23.06.2026, the assessee called absent and we

proceed to hear ld.DR and decide the issue on merits on the basis of

material available on record.

3.

On merits, after hearing the ld.DR, Ms. Swarnalatha, Addl.CIT, we note that the assessee filed return of income on 26.07.2023 and under

scrutiny, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued.

According to the AO, no submissions were filed in response to said two

:-3-: ITA No: 204/Chny/2026

statutory notices and accordingly the AO determined the income of the assessee by adopting GP ratio at 4.18% taking into account the past

history which is evident from para no.3.4.3(v) at page nos. 7 & 8 of the assessment order. On perusal of the impugned order we note that the ld.CIT(A) issued four notices fixing the compliance date, wherein no response whatsoever furnished by the assessee which is evident from para no.5 of the impugned order. As discussed above, the assessee remained absent before us on two occasions i.e., on 22.04.2026 and 23.06.2026, wherein we are of the considered opinion that the ITAT as

well as the AO and ld. CIT(A) gave ample opportunities to the assessee to prosecute his case, but however, no submissions were made. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) in confirming

the order of the AO in adopting the GP ratio at 4.18% on turnover. Thus, order of the ld.CIT(A) is justified and grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

4.

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

:-4-: ITA No: 204/Chny/2026

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

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.07.30 10:45:32 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →