KANNAN RAJAGOPAL,SWITZERLAND vs. ITO INT TAXATION WARD -1(2), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITITA 1/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 July 2026AY 2018-20193 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any representation from the assessee and any evidence to challenge the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it had no option but to confirm the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal found the order of the CIT(A) to be justified in confirming the AO's view on imposing the penalty. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kannan Rajagopal, filed an appeal before the ITAT, Chennai, against the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the CIT(A), Chennai-16, for the assessment year 2018-19. The appeal was filed on 22.01.2026. Notices sent to the assessee for hearings on 04.05.2026 and 30.06.2026 were returned unserved or resulted in no representation. The Assessing Officer (AO) had initiated penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by issuing show cause notices on 09.11.2023, 30.04.2024, and 13.05.2024. The assessee made no compliance to these notices. The assessee also made no compliance before the CIT(A) against the AO's order imposing penalty under section 270A. The ITAT proceeded to hear the appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT can proceed to decide the appeal when the assessee has failed to appear and make any representation, despite multiple opportunities and notices being served or attempted to be served. Assessee's contentions: Not recorded as the assessee was absent and made no representation. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, represented by the Senior AR, relied on the material available on record and the orders passed by the lower authorities. The revenue highlighted the consistent non-compliance by the assessee at all stages of the proceedings, including before the AO, the CIT(A), and the ITAT. The revenue argued that in the absence of any representation or evidence from the assessee, the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty under section 270A should be upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 274,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Hearing: 30.06.2026Pronounced: 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 (I.T) A. No.1/Chny/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kannan Rajagopal, Vs. The ITO (IT), 53, Phase 1, Maxworth Nagar, Ward-1(2), Kolapakkam, Chennai, Chennai. Tamil Nadu-600122. [PAN: AGDPK6145P] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : None. ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. Pilli Prem Kumar, SR. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 30.06.2026 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 19.12.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16, for the assessment year 2018–19.

2.

We find that this appeal was filed on 22.01.2026 and, after scrutiny, the ITAT Registry, Chennai Benches, fixed the appeal for hearing on 04.05.2026 and intimated the same to the assessee vide notice dated 20.03.2026 by RPAD. The said notice was returned ‘unserved’ on

2 I.T (I.T) A. No.1/Chny/2026

26.03.2026, which is on record. When the appeal was listed for hearing on 04.05.2026, we find no representation on behalf of the assessee and the appeal was adjourned to 30.06.2026. Further, again notice was ordered through the ld. DR. We find no representation on 30.06.2026, nor was any application filed seeking adjournment. The assessee was called absent and we proceed to hear the ld. DR and pass the order placing reliance on the material available on record.

3.

At the outset, it is noted that the AO initiated penalty proceedings for under-reporting of income vide penalty show cause notice dated 09.11.2023 under section 274 read with section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"). The said order is on record and, on perusal of the same, it is noted that the AO issued three show cause notices on 09.11.2023, 30.04.2024 and 13.05.2024, wherein no compliance whatsoever was made by the assessee to the said three show cause notices, which is evident from page No. 5 of the penalty order dated 27.05.2024. Further, being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), wherein it is noted that no compliance was made before the ld. CIT(A) against the view of the AO in imposing penalty under section 270A of the Act, which is evident from para No. 6.3 of the impugned order. As discussed above, no

3 I.T (I.T) A. No.1/Chny/2026

representation whatsoever was made before this Tribunal challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO under section 270A of the Act. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, we have no option except to confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the view of the AO in imposing penalty under section 270A of the Act. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th July, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 27.07.2026 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.

Digitally signed MANISH by MANISH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2026.07.30 10:35:33 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 274

All 4,894 judgments and leading authorities on Section 274 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →