PERFINT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CORPORATE WARD 5(1), CHENNAI

We find this appeal was filed with a delay of 1036 days. The assessee filed petition explaining the reasons to condone the delay. Ld.

Ld. DR, Mr. Pelli Prem Kumar, Sr. AR, vehemently opposed the impugned order made by the Ld. AR in condoning the said huge delay. He refers to petition and affidavit filed by the assessee and submits that there is no sufficient cause made out by the assessee by giving proper explanation for the said inordinate delay. He vehemently argued that the prayer of the Ld. AR should not be accepted as the assessee failed to show sufficient cause which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Further, he submits that reasons explained in the petition as well as in the affidavit are general in nature which cannot be accepted. He prayed to reject the petition filed to condone the delay.

Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the affidavit as well as petition to condone the said delay, we find, as rightly pointed out by the Ld. DR, no sufficient cause is made out by the assessee by giving proper explanation for the said delay. On perusal of the paras Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the petition, we find that the assessee made a general explanation that he is not aware of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the delay is not deliberate. In our opinion, this is not sufficient in explaining reasons for the inordinate delay of 1036 days. Further, the assessee has to give the explanation on a day-to-day basis, wherein no such explanation is offered in petition as well as notarized affidavit dated 13.02.2026. Therefore, in the absence of proper explanation, we find affidavit combined by the petition is liable to be rejected

We find time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Guruswamy & ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025, dated 08.01.2025 has reminded that the concept of “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation. Further, reasons must satisfy the authorities that the assessee was prevented by any sufficient cause, unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the authorities should not allow the petition for condonation of delay, in case the petition for condonation is allowed in condoning the delay without any justification, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to legislature. Having keeping in mind, we find in the present case, the length of delay is definitely a relevant matter that this Tribunal must take into consideration while considering the reasons explained in the delay condonation petition. It is an established principle where an appeal presented with abnormal delay, beyond limitation, the assessee has to explain as to what is the reasonable cause, which really prevented the assessee to approach the appellate authority within time. As we discussed above, since the assessee failed to give sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time, we hold that the assessee’s reasons for the inordinate delay cannot be interpreted liberally, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is required to give reasons on a day-to-day basis for an inordinate delay of 1036 days. In the absence of such reasons, we have no option but to reject the said affidavit. Thus, the affidavit filed seeking to condone the delay is dismissed.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

We find this appeal was filed with a delay of 633 days. The assessee filed petition explaining the reasons to condone the delay. Ld. AR, Mr. J. Vignesh, CA refers to para Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the said petition and submits that the assessee was not aware of the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and, due to non-receipt of communication, assessee could not file the appeal in time. He submits that there is no mala fide intention nor deliberate action in filing the appeal in time. He prayed to condone the delay in the interest of justice.

Ld. DR, Mr. Pelli Prem Kumar, Sr. AR, vehemently opposed the impugned order made by the Ld. AR in condoning the said huge delay. He refers to petition and affidavit filed by the assessee and submits that there is no sufficient cause made out by the assessee by giving proper explanation for the said inordinate delay. He vehemently argued that the prayer of the Ld. AR should not be accepted as the assessee failed to show sufficient cause which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Further, he submits that reasons explained in the petition as well as in the affidavit are general in nature which cannot be accepted. He prayed to reject the petition filed to condone the delay.

Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the affidavit as well as petition to condone the said delay, we find, as rightly pointed out by the Ld. DR, no sufficient cause is made out by the assessee by giving proper explanation for the said delay. On perusal of the paras Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the petition, we find that the assessee made a general explanation that he is not aware of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the delay is not deliberate. In our opinion, this is not sufficient in explaining reasons for the inordinate delay of 1036 days. Further, the assessee has to give the explanation on a day-to-day basis, wherein no such explanation is offered in petition as well as notarized affidavit dated 13.02.2026. Therefore, in the absence of proper explanation, we find affidavit combined by the petition is liable to be rejected

We find time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Guruswamy & ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025, dated 08.01.2025 has reminded that the concept of “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation. Further, reasons must satisfy the authorities that the assessee was prevented by any sufficient cause, unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the authorities should not allow the petition for condonation of delay, in case the petition for condonation is allowed in condoning the delay without any justification, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to legislature. Having keeping in mind, we find in the present case, the length of delay is definitely a relevant matter that this Tribunal must take into consideration while considering the reasons explained in the delay condonation petition. It is an established principle where an appeal presented with abnormal delay, beyond limitation, the assessee has to explain as to what is the reasonable cause, which really prevented the assessee to approach the appellate authority within time. As we discussed above, since the assessee failed to give sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time, we hold that the assessee’s reasons for the inordinate delay cannot be interpreted liberally, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is required to give reasons on a day-to-day basis for an inordinate delay of 633 days. In the absence of such reasons, we have no option but to reject the said affidavit. Thus, the affidavit filed seeking to condone the delay is dismissed.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

We find this appeal was filed with a delay of 480 days. The assessee filed petition explaining the reasons to condone the delay. Ld. AR, Mr. J. Vignesh, CA refers to para Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the said petition and submits that the assessee was not aware of the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and, due to non-receipt of communication, assessee could not file the appeal in time. He submits that there is no mala fide intention nor deliberate action in filing the appeal in time. He prayed to condone the delay in the interest of justice.

Ld. DR, Mr. Pelli Prem Kumar, Sr. AR, vehemently opposed the impugned order made by the Ld. AR in condoning the said huge delay. He refers to petition and affidavit filed by the assessee and submits that there is no sufficient cause made out by the assessee by giving proper explanation for the said inordinate delay. He vehemently argued that the prayer of the Ld. AR should not be accepted as the assessee failed to show sufficient cause which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Further, he submits that reasons explained in the petition as well as in the affidavit are general in nature which cannot be accepted. He prayed to reject the petition filed to condone the delay.

Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the affidavit as well as petition to condone the said delay, we find, as rightly pointed out by the Ld. DR, no sufficient cause is made out by the assessee by giving proper explanation for the said delay. On perusal of the paras Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the petition, we find that the assessee made a general explanation that he is not aware of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the delay is not deliberate. In our opinion, this is not sufficient in explaining reasons for the inordinate delay of 1036 days. Further, the assessee has to give the explanation on a day-to-day basis, wherein no such explanation is offered in petition as well as notarized affidavit dated 13.02.2026. Therefore, in the absence of proper explanation, we find affidavit combined by the petition is liable to be rejected

We find time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Guruswamy & ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025, dated 08.01.2025 has reminded that the concept of “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation. Further, reasons must satisfy the authorities that the assessee was prevented by any sufficient cause, unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the authorities should not allow the petition for condonation of delay, in case the petition for condonation is allowed in condoning the delay without any justification, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to legislature. Having keeping in mind, we find in the present case, the length of delay is definitely a relevant matter that this Tribunal must take into consideration while considering the reasons explained in the delay condonation petition. It is an established principle where an appeal presented with abnormal delay, beyond limitation, the assessee has to explain as to what is the reasonable cause, which really prevented the assessee to approach the appellate authority within time. As we discussed above, since the assessee failed to give sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time, we hold that the assessee’s reasons for the inordinate delay cannot be interpreted liberally, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is required to give reasons on a day-to-day basis for an inordinate delay of 480 days. In the absence of such reasons, we have no option but to reject the said affidavit. Thus, the affidavit filed seeking to condone the delay is dismissed.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

We find this appeal was filed with a delay of 1181 days. The assessee filed petition explaining the reasons to condone the delay. Ld. AR, Mr. J. Vignesh, CA refers to para Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the said petition and submits that the assessee was not aware of the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and, due to non-receipt of communication, assessee could not file the appeal in time. He submits that there is no mala fide intention nor deliberate action in filing the appeal in time. He prayed to condone the delay in the interest of justice.

Ld. DR, Mr. Pelli Prem Kumar, Sr. AR, vehemently opposed the impugned order made by the Ld. AR in condoning the said huge delay. He refers to petition and affidavit filed by the assessee and submits that there is no sufficient cause made out by the assessee by giving proper explanation for the said inordinate delay. He vehemently argued that the prayer of the Ld. AR should not be accepted as the assessee failed to show sufficient cause which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Further, he submits that reasons explained in the petition as well as in the affidavit are general in nature which cannot be accepted. He prayed to reject the petition filed to condone the delay.

Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the affidavit as well as petition to condone the said delay, we find, as rightly pointed out by the Ld. DR, no sufficient cause is made out by the assessee by giving proper explanation for the said delay. On perusal of the paras Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the petition, we find that the assessee made a general explanation that he is not aware of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the delay is not deliberate. In our opinion, this is not sufficient in explaining reasons for the inordinate delay of 1036 days. Further, the assessee has to give the explanation on a day-to-day basis, wherein no such explanation is offered in petition as well as notarized affidavit dated 13.02.2026. Therefore, in the absence of proper explanation, we find affidavit combined by the petition is liable to be rejected

We find time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Guruswamy & ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025, dated 08.01.2025 has reminded that the concept of “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation. Further, reasons must satisfy the authorities that the assessee was prevented by any sufficient cause, unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the authorities should not allow the petition for condonation of delay, in case the petition for condonation is allowed in condoning the delay without any justification, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to legislature. Having keeping in mind, we find in the present case, the length of delay is definitely a relevant matter that this Tribunal must take into consideration while considering the reasons explained in the delay condonation petition. It is an established principle where an appeal presented with abnormal delay, beyond limitation, the assessee has to explain as to what is the reasonable cause, which really prevented the assessee to approach the appellate authority within time. As we discussed above, since the assessee failed to give sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time, we hold that the assessee’s reasons for the inordinate delay cannot be interpreted liberally, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is required to give reasons on a day-to-day basis for an inordinate delay of 1181 days. In the absence of such reasons, we have no option but to reject the said affidavit. Thus, the affidavit filed seeking to condone the delay is dismissed.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.