What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the delay condonation petition primarily due to a lack of supporting medical evidence. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was filed with a significant delay. The assessee cited an accident and subsequent court proceedings as reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and if so, to adjudicate the appeal on merits.

Kathermohideen, Villupuram vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, ’ए’ �ायपीठ,चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ीयस यस िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं सु�ीपदमावती यस, लेखा सद�के सम� BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY.S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3884/Chny/2026 िनधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18 kathermohideen, Vs. The ITO, NO 46 , Sanjivirayan Pettai Ward-1, Tindivanam, Villupuram Dist, Villupuram. Tamil Nadu, 604001. [PAN: BFXPK4746J] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : None ��थ�कीओरसे/ Respondent by Mr. Anshu Sharawat, Addl. CIT : सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of hearing : 15.09.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 22.09.2026 : आदेश /O R D E RJ PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 02.06.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.

When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any adjournment application. Thus, the

2 ITA No. 3884/Chny/2026 assessee is called absent and set ex parte. We proceed to hear the Ld. DR, Mr. Anshu Sharawat, Addl. CIT, and decide the appeal on merits.

At the outset, it is noted that the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 502 days. The assessee filed a delay condonation petition seeking to condone the said delay with a reason that the assessee met with an accident on 31.10.2013 and the assessee underwent treatment and was appearing before the Court for compensation, etc. The Ld. CIT(A) found the said explanation as not acceptable. On perusal of the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in para No. 5.2.2 of the impugned order, we note that the Ld. CIT(A) primarily dismissed the delay condonation petition only on the ground of non-filing of medical certificates, hospitalization records, prescriptions, doctor’s advice, disability-related incapacity certificates, or any other evidence showing that the assessee was under treatment for a long time from 31.10.2013. Even before it, the assessee did not file any evidence showing the same; however, taking into consideration the road accident and consequential treatment with reference to compensation in the Court’s proceedings, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration, in the interest of justice, to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set

3 ITA No. 3884/Chny/2026 aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 22nd September, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/ Sd/- (S. PADMAVATHY) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Chennai, Dated: 22.09.2026 MM आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड�फाईल/GF.

MANISH Digitally signed by MANISH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2026.09.23 15:38:25 +05'30'

KATHERMOHIDEEN,VILLUPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, VILLUPURAM

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments