What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the FAA should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay before dismissing the appeal. Principles of natural justice require such an opportunity.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed in limine by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) due to a 212-day delay without proper condonation reasons. The assessee claimed inadvertent failure to attach the condonation petition.

What were the issues?

Whether the FAA was justified in dismissing the appeal without affording an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in filing.

Arulmigu Adaikalam Katha Ayyanar… vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & MS PADMAVATHY S

Hearing: 29.07.2026Pronounced: 03.08.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.01.2026 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2019-20.

- 2 - ITA No.1712/CHNY/2026 Arulmigu Adaikalam Katha Ayyanar Badra Kali Amman Temple 2. At the very outset, we notice that First Appellate Authority (FAA) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits. The FAA held that there is a delay of 212 days in filing the appeal before him and the assessee has not filed any specific reasons for delay neither in Form 35 nor any separate submission. Since the assessee has failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay, the FAA dismissed the appeal.

Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, the Ld.AR submitted that in Form 35, the assessee has stated that there is delay in filing the appeal and with respect to the grounds for condonation of delay, the assessee submitted ‘vide separate sheet attached’. However, while filing Form 35, the assessee had inadvertently failed to file the petition for condonation of delay vide separate sheet. It was further submitted by the Ld.AR, that the FAA ought to have provided an opportunity to the assessee to file condonation application for the delay in filing the appeal, before dismissing the appeal in limine.

The Ld.DR was duly heard.

- 3 - ITA No.1712/CHNY/2026 Arulmigu Adaikalam Katha Ayyanar Badra Kali Amman Temple 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The FAA had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay of 212 days in filing the appeal. On perusal of the order of FAA, we note that no separate petition seeking condonation of delay had been filed. It was the contention of the Ld.AR that the assessee while filing Form 35 inadvertently failed to attached the petition for condonation vide separate sheet. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not filing a proper condonation petition before the FAA. At the same time, it is noticed that the FAA, without issuing any defect notice or affording an opportunity to the assessee to explain the reasons for the delay, proceeded to dismiss the appeal. The principles of natural justice require that an opportunity should be granted to the assessee to explain as to why the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. In the present case, no such opportunity appears to have been provided by the FAA. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, we deem it fit to restore the matter to the file of the FAA. The assessee is directed to file a proper petition for condonation of delay, along with supporting materials and on receipt of the same, the FAA shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter adjudicate the condonation petition in accordance

- 4 - ITA No.1712/CHNY/2026 Arulmigu Adaikalam Katha Ayyanar Badra Kali Amman Temple with law. In the event the FAA is satisfied with the reasons furnished for the belated filing of the appeal, the FAA shall proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd August, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (प�मावती एस) (जॉज� जॉज� के) (PADMAVATHY S) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 3rd August, 2026 RSR, Sr.PS

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Madurai 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. By Order Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.08.05 09:51:06 +05'30'

ARULMIGU ADAIKALAM KATHA AYYANAR BADRA KALI AMMAN TEMPLE,SIVAGANGAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD, MADURAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments