COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. (LATE) MYTHR GRANDHI

TCA/817/2016HC Madras06 October 2026Bench: Honourable Dr.Justice ANITA SUMANTH3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal for default, citing the non-service of notice on the respondent/assessee despite multiple opportunities and the fact that the third 'batta' was still due. Additionally, the Court noted that the tax demand of Rs.74,09,841/- was below the threshold stipulated in Circular No.9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were left unanswered. The appeal was dismissed without any costs. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle II (2), Chennai, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), B Bench, Chennai, dated 06.06.2016, pertaining to assessment year 2009-2010. The assessee is (Late) Mythr Grandhi, represented by Lh Vinay V. Grandhi. The appeal was admitted on 28.11.2016. Despite multiple notices issued to the respondent/assessee, including through the court and privately, and opportunities afforded for service of notice, the third 'batta' (process fee for serving notice) remained due. The tax demand in dispute was Rs.74,09,841/-, which was noted to be below the threshold stipulated in Circular No.9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal is liable to be dismissed for default due to non-service of notice on the respondent/assessee? 2. Whether the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the tax demand is below the threshold prescribed by Circular No.9 of 2024? Assessee's contentions: The respondent/assessee was not ready in notice and did not present any arguments. The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the assessee's side. Revenue's contentions: The appellant/revenue contended that the appeal was admitted and notice was issued. The revenue sought to serve notice on the assessee's counsel who appeared before the Tribunal. The revenue also implicitly relied on the fact that the tax demand was Rs.74,09,841/-, which was later stated to be below the threshold under Circular No.9 of 2024.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA No. 817 of 2016 __________ Page1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-10-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR TCA No. 817 of 2016 CNR: {HCMA010977422016} Commissioner Of Income Tax,Non Corporate Circle Ii (2) Chennai ..Appellant(s) Vs (Late) Mythr Grandhi Rep By Lh Vinay V. Grandhi No 6, Masilamani Street, Balaji Nagar, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014 ..Respondent(s) Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal B Bench, Chennai dated 06.06.2016 in TA.No.582/MDS/2016 for the assessment year 2009-2010. For Appellant(s): Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent(s): Not ready in notice. JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.) This appeal relating to assessment year 2009-2010 has been admitted on 28.11.2016 and notice was issued. On 03.12.2018, one more notice was issued through Court and privately and the appellant counsel i.e., Standing Counsel for the Department, was permitted to serve notice to the counsel who had appeared https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 05:16:56 pm ) TCA No. 817 of 2016 __________ Page2 of 3 for the assessee before the Tribunal and file proof of service. On 17.12.2018, yet another opportunity for service of notice was afforded. 2. Today, we find that third batta is still due. Hence, the matter is dismissed for default. That apart, we find that the tax demand is a sum of Rs.74,09,841/-, which is below the threshold under Circular No.9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024. 3. For the above reasons, Appeal is dismissed, returning the substantial questions of law unanswered. No costs. (A.S.M.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 06-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No vsi https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 05:16:56 pm ) TCA No. 817 of 2016 __________ Page3 of 3 DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J. vsi TCA No. 817 of 2016 06-10-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2026 05:16:56 pm )

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →