What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 253 days on payment of costs and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to consider the delay condonation petition and adjudicate the issue on merits, allowing the assessee to file evidence.

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 253 days. The assessee argued that they were not given an opportunity before the lower authorities. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine due to the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present their case on merits.

Gunasekaran, Villupuram vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Before: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 18.08.2026Pronounced: 20.08.2026

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. This appeal was filed with a delay of 253 days and the assessee filed petition accompanied by notarized affidavit dated 10.06.2026

:-2-: ITA No: 3429/Chny/2026

explaining reasons for the said delay. Upon hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the length of time of 253 days, we are of the considered opinion that such delay of 253 days shall be condoned on a condition of payment of cost of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the Tamil Nadu

State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within

30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

The ld.AR, Shri. Venkatasubramanian, CA argued that there was no opportunity for the assessee before the AO and the ld.CIT(A) and prayed to remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A).

The ld.DR, Ms. R. Anita, CIT, opposed the same and referred the impugned order and submits that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 103 days.

Upon hearing both the parties, we note that admittedly there was no evidence to establish the transactions in the Indian Bank with reference to cash deposits which is evident from para no.9 of the assessment order. On perusal of the impugned order as rightly pointed

by the ld.DR, it is noted that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine

:-3-: ITA No: 3429/Chny/2026

for not satisfying with the reasons explained by the assessee for the delay of 103 days. Admittedly, there was no occasion to discuss the issues on merits by the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, as discussed above, since

the issue requires examination of evidences with reference to cash

deposits in Indian Bank, we are of the considered opinion that one more

opportunity is to be given to assessee to prosecute his case before the ld.CIT(A). Thus, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for his fresh consideration of delay condonation petition

and condone the said delay, adjudicate the issue on merits. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of his claim. Thus,

order of the ld.CIT(A) is set aside and grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

purposes. Order pronounced on 20th August, 2026 at Chennai. (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 20.08.2026 JPV

:-4-: ITA No: 3429/Chny/2026

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

PRASANNA VANI JETTY Date: 2026.08.24 11:56:10 +05'30'

GUNASEKARAN,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, VILLUPURAM

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments