R PALANIYAPPAN ,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, PUDUKKOTTAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ ए’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी यस यस िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं सु�ी पदमावती यस, लेखा सद� के सम# BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY.S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3718/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$/Assessment Year: 2017-18 R. Palaniyappan, Vs. Income Tax officer, 299/16-A, Indira Nagar, Ward-1, Karambakudi, Pudukkottai. Pudukkottai – 622 301. [PAN: AUIPP-6261-C] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()थ'/Respondent) अपीलाथ' की ओर से / Appellant by : None ()थ' की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. L. Christopher Vasanth, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 04.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 21.07.2026 : 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 28.06.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18.

2 ITA No. 3718/Chny/2025 2. We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor filed any

adjournment application. We find this appeal was filed on 08.12.2025 and after scrutiny the Registry, ITAT intimated the fixation of date of hearing on 18.02.2026 vide notice dated 07.02.2026. We note that in response to said notice Mr. S. Ashok Sundaresan, CA, appeared on 18.02.2026 and sought adjournment to 19.02.2026, accordingly, the above appeal was adjourned

to 19.02.2026, however, we find no representation on behalf of the assessee on 19.02.2026 and it was adjourned to 20.04.2026 by ordering notice through RPAD. On perusal of the docket the above appeal adjourned to 04.06.2026 for non-functioning of bench. On 04.06.2026, the assessee called absent and we proceed to hear the ld.DR to dispose the appeal considering the material available on record.

affidavit filed only for 455 days. The Registry issued defect memo and

accordingly, the assessee filed notarized affidavit dated 10.01.2026

explaining the reasons. On perusal of the same, we note that the

assessee admits that the ld.CIT(A) passed impugned order on

28.06.2024 which was received by the assessee in e-mail on the same

day i.e. on 28.06.2024, but however, filed an appeal on 08.12.2025 with

a delay of 464 days, which is evident from para no.2 of the notarized

3 ITA No. 3718/Chny/2025 affidavit. Further, it was explained vide para no.3 of the said affidavit

that the assessee hails from the small village and the e-mail ID was used

only for the purpose of filing e-returns. Hailing from humble background

in a small town, the assessee missed seeing the order and came to know

only after local Income Tax Office started calling him for tax recovery.

averments in the affidavit by arguing that there was no explanation on day- to-day basis. The assessee explained the said reasons very casually without any basis which cannot be taken into account liberally. The ld.DR requested to reject the delay condonation petition.

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

4 ITA No. 3718/Chny/2025 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, we hold that the assessee’s reasons for the

inordinate delay cannot be interpreted liberally, we, therefore, reject the

condonation petition filed by the assessee for the delay of 464 days in

5 ITA No. 3718/Chny/2025 filing the appeal before the ITAT. Thus, reasons explained by the assessee in the delay condonation petition as well as notarized affidavit are not acceptable. Hence, delay condonation petition is rejected. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

Chennai, Dated: 21.07.2026 JPV 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 Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.07.22 17:08:06 +05'30'