M S MOHAMED IQBAL,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PUDUKKOTTAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ ए’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ 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. Nos.836, 837, 838 & 839/Chny/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20

MS Mohamed Iqbal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.6/95B, R.Pudupatinam, Mimisal, Ward I, T.S. No. 8663/2, Pudukkottai, Tamil Nadu, 622002. 614621. [PAN: BNCPM6454N] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. M.K. Rangasamy, C.A. ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. Kumar Chandan, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 11.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 17.06.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20.

I.T.A. Nos. 836, 837, 838 & 839/Chny/26 2

hear all the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

-:I.T.A. No.836/Chny/2026:- (Assessment Year: 2018-19) 3. At the outset, it is submitted by the ld. AR, Mr. M.K. Rangasamy, C.A., that the assessee remained absent before both the authorities below and prayed to remand the matter to the file of the AO for his fresh consideration. On perusal of the assessment order, it is noted that the AO made an addition on account of the absence of any reply from the assessee and adopted a profit rate of 8% of the total receipts. Ld. AR submitted that the said profit rate of 8% is excessive and not reasonable. Further, on perusal of the impugned order, it is noted that the ld. CIT(A) clearly held that there was no material furnished in the first appellate proceedings substantiating the grounds raised in Form 35, which is clear from para 4.3.5 of the impugned order. Therefore, as it appears from the record of both the authorities below, there was no assistance on behalf of the assessee relating to the issues discussed therein.

I.T.A. Nos. 836, 837, 838 & 839/Chny/26 3

Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

-:I.T.A. No.837/Chny/2026:- (Assessment Year: 2018-19) 7. At the outset, it is noted that the AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") in relation to his satisfaction recorded in the assessment order. We have taken a view in the quantum appeal in ITA No.836/Chny/2026 in the aforementioned paras, remanding the matter to the file of the AO for his fresh consideration, and thereby the penalty appeal becomes academic. Thus, being academic, it requires no adjudication. Accordingly, the present appeal of the assessee filed against the penalty order is dismissed as infructuous.

-:I.T.A. No. 838/Chny/2026:- (Assessment Year: 2019-20) 8. At the outset, it is submitted by the ld. AR, Mr. M.K. Rangasamy, C.A., that the assessee remained absent before both the authorities below and prayed to remand the matter to the file of the AO for his fresh consideration. On perusal of the assessment order, it is noted that the AO made an addition on account of the absence of any reply from the assessee and adopted a profit rate of 8% of the total receipts. Ld. AR submitted that the said profit rate of 8% is excessive and not reasonable. Further, on perusal of the impugned order, it is noted that the ld. CIT(A)

I.T.A. Nos. 836, 837, 838 & 839/Chny/26 4

clearly held that there was no material furnished in the first appellate proceedings substantiating the grounds raised in Form 35, which is clear from para 4.3.5 of the impugned order. Therefore, as it appears from the record of both the authorities below, there was no assistance on behalf of the assessee relating to the issues discussed therein.

-:I.T.A. No. 839/Chny/2026:- (Assessment Year: 2019-20) 11. At the outset, it is noted that the AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") in relation to his satisfaction recorded in the assessment order. We have taken a view in the quantum appeal in ITA No.836/Chny/2026 in the aforementioned paras, remanding the matter to the file of the AO for his fresh consideration, and thereby the penalty appeal becomes academic. Thus, being academic, it requires no adjudication. Accordingly, the present appeal of the assessee filed against the penalty order is dismissed as infructuous.

I.T.A. Nos. 836, 837, 838 & 839/Chny/26 5

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 17.06.2026 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.