SIVASUBRAMANIAPILLAI SIVATHANUPILLAI,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-2(1), COIMBATORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that while no formal delay condonation petition was filed, reasons were provided. It found the explanation for the delay insufficient and directed the assessee to file a detailed delay condonation petition before the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) for being filed with a significant delay, which the assessee contested, claiming a much shorter delay. The assessee argued they did not receive the original orders and only received recovery notices later.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals in limine without properly considering the reasons for the delay in filing, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration of a delay condonation petition.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ ए’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी इंटूरी रामाराव, लेखा सद� एवं �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� के सम� । Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1893, 1894, 1895 & 1896/Chny/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2015-16
Sivasubramaniapillai Sivathanupillai, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 2/48, Anniveethi, Sivaramnagar, NCW 2(1), Coimbatore. Maniakarampalayam B.O, Coimbatore North, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, 641 006. [PAN: BWPPS3710K] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. S. Bhupendran, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. S. Manoj Prakash, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 15.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 14.07.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment years 2015-16.
Since, the issues raised in these appeals are similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to
I.T.A. Nos. 1893, 1894, 1895 & 1896/Chny/26 2
hear all the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
-:I.T.A. No.1896/Chny/2026:- 3. At the outset, it is submitted by the ld. AR, Mr. S. Bhupendran, Advocate, that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. He argued that the ld. CIT(A) held that there is a delay of 635 days; however, it is only 40 days. He argued that the assessee did not receive any assessment order but only received the notice for recovery on 20.08.2025, and therefore, there is a delay of only 40 days, and drew our attention to the statement of facts in Form No. 35 of the appeal memo. Further, he drew our attention to the impugned order at paragraph No. 5.1 and submits that the ld. CIT(A) held that there is a delay of approximately 635 days from the date of passing of the assessment order; however, it was vehemently contested that the assessee did not receive the assessment order dated 31.01.2024. Further, he argued that the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the reasons explained in Form No. 35 for condoning the delay and, as such, sought remand to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for filing the delay condonation petition for his fresh consideration and drew our attention to the affidavit dated 10.06.2026 filed before the ITAT. He requested to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for his fresh consideration of the delay condonation petition that may be filed in line with the affidavit dated 10.06.2026 filed before the ITAT.
Ld. DR Mr. S. Manoj Prakash, JCIT vehemently opposed the same.
I.T.A. Nos. 1893, 1894, 1895 & 1896/Chny/26 3
Having heard both the parties, we note that admittedly no delay condonation petition was filed before the ld. CIT(A); however, reasons were explained vide the statement of facts in Form No. 35 before the ld. CIT(A). On perusal of the same, we find that there is no proper explanation in respect of the alleged delay of 635 days, which was denied by the ld. AR as it is only a delay of 40 days. If that is the contention, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to file a delay condonation petition in detail by bringing every fact which really prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) shall consider the same and pass an order. If the assessee succeeds on such delay condonation petition, the ld. CIT(A), after affording reasonable opportunity, may decide the issues on merits. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-:I.T.A. No.1893/Chny/2026:- 7. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of one day. The assessee filed an affidavit accompanied by a petition explaining the reasons. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons explained by the assessee are bona fide, which really prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay of one day is condoned.
I.T.A. Nos. 1893, 1894, 1895 & 1896/Chny/26 4
At the outset, it is submitted by the ld. AR, Mr. S. Bhupendran, Advocate, that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. He argued that the ld. CIT(A) held that there is a delay of 469 days; however, it is only 69 days. He argued that the assessee did not receive any penalty order dated 16.07.2024 but only received the notice for recovery on 20.08.2025, and therefore, there is a delay of only 69 days, and drew our attention to the statement of facts in Form No. 35 of the appeal memo. Further, he drew our attention to the impugned order at paragraph No. 5.1 and submits that the ld. CIT(A) held that there is a delay of approximately 469 days from the date of passing of the penalty order; however, it was vehemently contested that the assessee did not receive the penalty order dated 16.07 2024. Further, he argued that the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the reasons explained in Form No. 35 for condoning the delay and, as such, sought remand to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for filing the delay condonation petition for his fresh consideration and drew our attention to the affidavit dated 10.06.2026 filed before the ITAT. He requested to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for his fresh consideration of the delay condonation petition that may be filed in line with the affidavit dated 10.06.2026 filed before the ITAT.
Ld. DR Mr. S. Manoj Prakash, JCIT vehemently opposed the same.
Having heard both the parties, we note that admittedly no delay condonation petition was filed before the ld. CIT(A); however, reasons were explained vide the statement of facts in Form No. 35 before the ld. CIT(A). On perusal of the same, we find that there is no proper explanation in respect of the alleged delay of 469 days, which was denied
I.T.A. Nos. 1893, 1894, 1895 & 1896/Chny/26 5
by the ld. AR as it is only a delay of 69 days. If that is the contention, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to file a delay condonation petition in detail by bringing every fact which really prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) shall consider the same and pass an order. If the assessee succeeds on such delay condonation petition, the ld. CIT(A), after affording reasonable opportunity, may decide the issues on merits. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-:I.T.A. No.1894/Chny/2026:- 12. At the outset, it is submitted by the ld. AR, Mr. S. Bhupendran, Advocate, that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. He argued that the ld. CIT(A) held that there is a delay of 458 days; however, it is only 40 days. He argued that the assessee did not receive any penalty order dated 26.07.2024 but only received the notice for recovery on 20.08.2025, and therefore, there is a delay of only 40 days, and drew our attention to the statement of facts in Form No. 35 of the appeal memo. Further, he drew our attention to the impugned order at paragraph No. 5.1 and submits that the ld. CIT(A) held that there is a delay of approximately 458 days from the date of passing of the penalty order; however, it was vehemently contested that the assessee did not receive the penalty order dated 26.07.2024. Further, he argued that the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the reasons explained in Form
I.T.A. Nos. 1893, 1894, 1895 & 1896/Chny/26 6
No. 35 for condoning the delay and, as such, sought remand to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for filing the delay condonation petition for his fresh consideration and drew our attention to the affidavit dated 10.06.2026 filed before the ITAT. He requested to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for his fresh consideration of the delay condonation petition that may be filed in line with the affidavit dated 10.06.2026 filed before the ITAT.
Ld. DR Mr. S. Manoj Prakash, JCIT vehemently opposed the same.
Having heard both the parties, we note that admittedly no delay condonation petition was filed before the ld. CIT(A); however, reasons were explained vide the statement of facts in Form No. 35 before the ld. CIT(A). On perusal of the same, we find that there is no proper explanation in respect of the alleged delay of 458 days, which was denied by the ld. AR as it is only a delay of 40 days. If that is the contention, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to file a delay condonation petition in detail by bringing every fact which really prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) shall consider the same and pass an order. If the assessee succeeds on such delay condonation petition, the ld. CIT(A), after affording reasonable opportunity, may decide the issues on merits. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
I.T.A. Nos. 1893, 1894, 1895 & 1896/Chny/26 7
-:I.T.A. No. 1895/Chny/2026:- 16. At the outset, it is submitted by the ld. AR, Mr. S. Bhupendran, Advocate, that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. He argued that the ld. CIT(A) held that there is a delay of 458 days; however, it is only 40 days. He argued that the assessee did not receive any penalty order dated 16.07.2024 but only received the notice for recovery on 20.08.2025, and therefore, there is a delay of only 40 days, and drew our attention to the statement of facts in Form No. 35 of the appeal memo. Further, he drew our attention to the impugned order at paragraph No. 5.1 and submits that the ld. CIT(A) held that there is a delay of approximately 458 days from the date of passing of the penalty order; however, it was vehemently contested that the assessee did not receive the penalty order dated 16.07.2024. Further, he argued that the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the reasons explained in Form No. 35 for condoning the delay and, as such, sought remand to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for filing the delay condonation petition for his fresh consideration and drew our attention to the affidavit dated 10.06.2026 filed before the ITAT. He requested to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for his fresh consideration of the delay condonation petition that may be filed in line with the affidavit dated 10.06.2026 filed before the ITAT.
Ld. DR Mr. S. Manoj Prakash, JCIT vehemently opposed the same.
Having heard both the parties, we note that admittedly no delay condonation petition was filed before the ld. CIT(A); however, reasons were explained vide the statement of facts in Form No. 35 before the ld. CIT(A). On perusal of the same, we find that there is no proper
I.T.A. Nos. 1893, 1894, 1895 & 1896/Chny/26 8
explanation in respect of the alleged delay of 458 days, which was denied by the ld. AR as it is only a delay of 40 days. If that is the contention, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to file a delay condonation petition in detail by bringing every fact which really prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) shall consider the same and pass an order. If the assessee succeeds on such delay condonation petition, the ld. CIT(A), after affording reasonable opportunity, may decide the issues on merits. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 14th July, 2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 14.07.2026 MM/- 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 &
I.T.A. Nos. 1893, 1894, 1895 & 1896/Chny/26 9 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.
MANIS Digitally signed by H MANISH MISHRA MISHR Date: 2026.07.16 A 17:31:24 +05'30'
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
