What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay and that a day-to-day explanation was required. The affidavit seeking condonation of delay was dismissed.

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 442 days. The assessee's affidavit explaining the delay did not provide sufficient cause, stating only that it was beyond their control.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned without sufficient cause being shown by the assessee.

Bakthavatchalam, Alandhur vs Additional/Joint Comissioner of… | ITAT Chennai 2026

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Hearing: 01.09.2026Pronounced: 18.09.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ 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. No.2888/Chny/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bakthavatchalam, Vs. The Additional/Joint Commissioner 17/18, Madhava Perumal, East Street. of Income Tax (A), Alandhur, Chennai, 600016, Chennai. Tamil Nadu. [PAN: AIQPB9709H] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : None ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. C.P. Solomon, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 01.09.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 18.09.2026 : 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 10.12.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT(A)-2 Mumbai, for the assessment year 2017-18.

We note that the assessee filed this appeal on 18.5.2026. After scrutiny, Registry, ITAT Chennai Benches issued notice dated 23.7.2026 by RPAD intimating the fixation of the date of hearing on 1.9.2026. Today, on 01.09.2026, when the matter was called, we find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Therefore, we proceed to hear the Ld. DR Mr. C.P. Solomon, JCIT and

2 I.T.A. No.2888/Chny/26

pass order based on the material available on record. We find this appeal was filed with a delay of 442 days. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons to condone the said delay. On perusal of the said affidavit, we note that no reasons were explained making out a sufficient cause for the delay, except stating that the delay was neither willful nor deliberate, but occurred due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control.

Ld. DR submits that no reason was given by the assessee to show sufficient cause in filing the appeal with a huge delay. He prayed to reject the said application.

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

3 I.T.A. No.2888/Chny/26

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 442 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 view of our decision in dismissing the appeal in limine, the ground raised in Form 36 becomes academic.

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

Order pronounced on 18th September, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 18.09.2026 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.

MANISH Digitally signed by MANISH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2026.09.23 15:04:38 +05'30'

BAKTHAVATCHALAM,ALANDHUR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments