What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the lack of a proper delay condonation petition and the assessee's non-compliance. The Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the appeal based on the available records and the arguments of the Revenue.

The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay of 214 days. Despite multiple notices and opportunities, the assessee failed to file a proper delay condonation petition with supporting affidavits. The assessee also remained unrepresented during the hearing.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal due to a substantial delay and the assessee's failure to provide adequate reasons for the delay through a proper condonation petition.

Susainathan Edwin Raj, Neyveli vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

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

Hearing: 27.07.2026Pronounced: 21.09.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ 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.3052/Chny/2025 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Susainathan Edwin Raj, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Susainathan Edwin Raj Ward 2, A 1 South Cement Street, Cuddalore. Block 9 Neyveli 607803, Tamil Nadu. [PAN: AAKPE2830J]

(अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : None ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. Madhan Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 27.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 21.09.2026 : 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 30.01.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2015-16.

We find the endorsement of the Registry, ITAT, Chennai Benches, that the present appeal was filed with a delay of 214 days and an affidavit stating the reasons filed only for 199 days. The Registry, ITAT, Chennai

2 I.T.A. No.3052/Chny/25

Benches, issued a defect memo on 16.12.2025 requesting the assessee to file a proper delay condonation petition, and the assessee vide letter dated 03.07.2026 requested further time to file an affidavit to rectify the defect. On 27.07.2026, we find no such affidavit filed by the assessee and no representation on behalf of the assessee. The assessee was called absent and we proceed to hear the Ld. DR, Mr. Madhan Kumar, Sr. DR, to pass the order based on the material available on record.

Ld. DR vehemently argued that the present appeal is not maintainable as no affidavit was filed to condone the huge delay of 214 days. He submits that the assessee is required to file an affidavit along with the petition stating the reasons on day-to-day basis. He prayed to dismiss the appeal in limine as there was no delay condonation petition seeking to condone the delay, as endorsed by the Registry, ITAT, Chennai Benches.

Having heard the Ld. DR and on perusal of the material available on record, we find, as rightly pointed out by the Ld. DR, that there was no response from the assessee in rectifying the mistake endorsed by the Registry, ITAT, Chennai Benches, vide its notice dated 20.06.2025 and, inspite of filing the letter dated 03.09.2026, there was no compliance by the assessee in filing the delay condonation petition stating the reasons

3 I.T.A. No.3052/Chny/25

for such an inordinate delay of 214 days. Therefore, having no option in filing the affidavit along with the petition, we find this appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

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

Order pronounced on 21st September, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 21.09.2026 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 16:15:22 +05'30'

SUSAINATHAN EDWIN RAJ,NEYVELI vs. ITO, WARD-2, CUDDALORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments