RAISER PASUMAL DEVELOPMENT LTD.,MADURAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-4,, MADURAI

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 AND BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3057/Chny/2026 िनधा'रण वष'/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raiser Pasumal Development Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.4, Kanakkupillai Lane, Corporate Ward -4, Avaniyapuram, Madurai. Madurai – 625 012. [PAN: AAFCR-7644-M] (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,थ*/Respondent) अपीलाथ* की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. Akash, Advocate +,थ* की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Premi, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 23.07.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 28.07.2026 : 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 11.05.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18.

2 ITA No. 3057/Chny/2026

delay of 1698 days challenging the order of the AO dated 27.12.2019. The

assessee filed delay condonation petition before the ld.CIT(A), reasons of

which reproduced by the ld.CIT(A) in page no. 8 & 9 of the impugned order.

no mail from the AO and was completely unaware about the assessment

proceedings. Further, the assessee come to know only on the attachment

of his bank account and immediately contacted the CA and Advocate to file

the appeal. Thereafter, papers were prepared and appeal was filed before

the ld.CIT(A) immediately. He submits that the above said delay is neither

wilful nor wanton, but due to circumstances beyond the assessee’s control

and prayed to direct the ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay.

given by the assessee and the ld.CIT(A) rightly rejected the delay

condonation petition by recording his reasons in para no. 4.1.1 of the

impugned order. She vehemently argued that the huge delay of 1698 days

cannot be condoned casually unless the assessee brings valid reasons on

record. Further, assessee failed to give reasons explaining the delay on

day-to-day basis and by referring to reasons reproduced by the ld.CIT(A),

3 ITA No. 3057/Chny/2026

she argued no sufficient cause was made out by making a mere statement

that the assessee was unaware of the assessment proceedings, no mail has been received. She prayed to reject the prayer made by the ld.AR.

ld.DR delay of 1698 days is inordinate delay and assessee is expected to give explanation on day-to-day basis. On perusal of the reasons explained

by the assessee in page no. 8 & 9 of the impugned order, we note that no

mail has been received and the assessee was completely unaware of the

assessment proceedings, in our opinion, is not a reasonable explanation to condone the inordinate delay of 1698 days. As rightly pointed out by the

ld.DR, the assessee has to give proper explanation on day-to-day basis

and by making a mere statement that no mail is received and unaware of

the assessment proceedings, in our opinion, does not constitute a sufficient

cause to condone the delay of 1698 days. Therefore, we find there is no

infirmity in the reasons recorded by the ld.CIT(A) from para no. 4.1.1 to

4.1.12 of the impugned order.

Guruswamy & ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025,

dated 08.01.2025 has reminded that the concept of “liberal approach”,

4 ITA No. 3057/Chny/2026

“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, we hold that the assessee’s reasons for the

inordinate delay cannot be interpreted liberally, we, therefore, are not

satisfied with the explanation offered in the condonation petition filed by

the assessee for the delay of 1698 days in filing the appeal before the

5 ITA No. 3057/Chny/2026

ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the ld.CIT(A) is justified in rejecting the delay condonation petition by dismissing appeal in limine. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Chennai, Dated: 28.07.2026 JPV आदेश की +ितिलिप अ3ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ*/Appellant, 2.+,थ*/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु4/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय +ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड' फाईल/GF.

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.07.30 10:41:20 +05'30'