M/S. SATHYAMANGALAM SARVODAYA SANGH,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), ERODE

At the outset, it is noted that the assessee challenged the intimation dated 18.02.2023 before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 891 days. According to the ld. CIT(A), no delay condonation petition was filed by the assessee to condone the said delay of 891 days, which is evident from para No. 2.1 of the impugned order.

Ld. AR, Mr. G. Sudhakar, Advocate, referred to an affidavit dated 15.05.2026 and submits that the assessee's tax consultant had undertaken to inform the assessee of the proceedings from time to time and, due to lack of knowledge to address the issue of the case, the assessee could not properly file the appeal in time. He prayed to direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay by affording one more opportunity to the assessee.

Ld. DR, Ms. Premi, Sr. AR, vehemently opposed the submissions of the assessee seeking remand of the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay. She referred to the aforesaid notarized affidavit and contended that the assessee had failed to furnish any reasonable explanation for the delay and, therefore, the affidavit deserved to be rejected. She further submitted that, as is evident from Para No. 2 of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) had granted ample opportunities to the assessee to prosecute the appeal; however, despite such opportunities, no compliance was made by the assessee. Accordingly, she prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Having heard both the parties, we note that the assessee did not even admit any delay in Form No. 35 and, accordingly, no application seeking condonation of the delay was filed. We find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the appeal in limine for want of a petition to condone the delay by observing that the appeal is defective. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the assessee before us, we note that, as rightly pointed out by the ld. DR, no valid reasons were given to condone the inordinate delay of 891 days. Therefore, we find no force in the argument of the ld. AR for remanding the matter to the file of the ld.

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 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 before ld. CIT(A), we hold that the assessee’s reasons for the inordinate delay cannot be interpreted liberally, we, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the condonation petition filed by the assessee for the delay of 891 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 03rd August, 2026 at Chennai.