What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 544 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the assessee's affidavit, passport details, and wife's medical records. The Tribunal also admitted additional evidence and restored the issues to the AO for fresh examination.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a 544-day delay, which the CIT(A) did not condone. The assessee explained the delay by citing communication gaps with the previous consultant and prolonged stays abroad due to employment and his wife's medical condition.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and whether additional evidence should be admitted.

Balaji Gadala, Royapuram vs CIT | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 23.06.2026Pronounced: 29.06.2026

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 23.02.2026 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2019-20.

ITA Nos.2346/CHNY/2026 - 2 - Balaji Gadala 2. At the outset, we note that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) dismissed the appeal in limine without going into the merits, as the delay of 544 days in filing the appeal was not condoned. The FAA, in para 5.2 of the order, has extracted the reasons stated by the assessee in the petition for condonation for the delay. According to the FAA, the reasons advanced by the assessee, namely communication gaps and lack of proper follow-up by the earlier consultant, were general in nature and were not substantiated by any cogent or verifiable evidence. The FAA held that the assessee had failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay and hence, declined to condone the delay and consequently, dismissed the appeal in limine.

Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the FAA. It was submitted that during the relevant period, the assessee was residing abroad on account of his employment and travelled to India, primarily on account of the medical condition of his wife. The assessee has submitted his travel details, as under:-

ITA Nos.2346/CHNY/2026 - 3 - Balaji Gadala 1. Departed India on 19.09.2022 and arrived back on 24.06.2023 2. Departed India on 03.07.2023 and arrived back on 30.03.2024 3. Departed India on 12.04.2024 and arrived back on 17.06.2024 4. Departed India on 24.06.2024 and arrived back on 16.07.2024 5. Departed India on 04.08.2024 and arrived back on 18.09.2024 6. Departed India on 22.09.2024 and arrived back on 14.01.2025 7. Departed India on 23.01.2025 and arrived back on 22.03.2025 8. Departed India on 29.01.2026 and arrived back on 13.03.2026

In support of the said contention, the assessee furnished copies of his passports evidencing his overseas stay as well as medical records relating to his wife. The assessee further submitted that the assessee had entrusted all his income-tax matters to his erstwhile tax consultant and was under a bona fide belief that the assessment proceedings and consequential appellate compliances were being properly attended to. However, due to a communication gap and lack of proper follow-up by the said consultant, the assessment order and the consequential tax demand were not communicated to the assessee in a timely manner. It was further submitted that the consultant failed to take appropriate steps for filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The assessee submitted that, being outside India for substantial periods and relying entirely upon the professional services of the consultant, the assessee remained unaware of the assessment order and the demand raised. Upon returning to India, the assessee attempted to

ITA Nos.2346/CHNY/2026 - 4 - Balaji Gadala contact the earlier consultant, but he was not reachable and failed to respond. Thereafter, the assessee engaged a new tax professional and, upon verification of the records, became aware of the assessment order and the outstanding demand. Immediately thereafter, all relevant documents were collected and necessary steps were taken to file the appeal without any further delay. The assessee contended that the delay had occurred due to circumstances beyond his control and on account of his bona fide reliance on the previous consultant coupled with his prolonged stay abroad. It was therefore pleaded that the delay be condoned.

The assessee further submitted that he was unable to furnish complete details and supporting evidences before the AO during the course of the assessment proceedings. It was submitted that he has now filed all the relevant documents before the Tribunal along with a petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Rules, 1963. The assessee contended that these additional evidences are crucial for proper adjudication of the issues involved and would substantiate his claim that the additions made by the AO are factually incorrect and unsustainable in law. It was therefore prayed that, in the interest of substantial justice, the

ITA Nos.2346/CHNY/2026 - 5 - Balaji Gadala additional evidences filed may be admitted and taken on record for consideration while deciding the appeal.

The Ld.DR supported the order of the FAA.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On going through the order of the FAA, it is seen that though the assessee had stated reasons for the delay however, has not filed any supporting evidence or affidavit and supporting evidence. Before the Tribunal, the assessee has explained the delay of 544 days in filing the appeal before the FAA through a detailed affidavit. The assessee has furnished copies of his passports evidencing his prolonged stay abroad during the relevant period and has also placed on record medical records of his wife to substantiate his claim. The assessee has further explained that he had entrusted his tax matters to his erstwhile consultant and was under a bona fide belief that the assessment proceedings and appellate compliances were being duly attended to. However, due to a communication gap and lack of proper follow-up by the consultant, the assessment order and consequential demand were not brought to his notice in time. We find that the explanation offered by the assessee is reasonable and supported by documentary evidence.

ITA Nos.2346/CHNY/2026 - 6 - Balaji Gadala There is nothing on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate or attributable to any mala fide intention. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, particularly the assessee's prolonged stay abroad, the medical condition of his wife, and his bona fide reliance on the tax consultant, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay of 544 days before the FAA is condoned.

We find that the assessee has filed a petition under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Rules, 1963 seeking admission of additional evidences. The assessee has explained that the relevant documents could not be furnished before the AO during the assessment proceedings and has now placed the same on record before the Tribunal. On perusal of the documents filed, we find that the additional evidences are relevant and have a direct bearing on the issues arising in the present appeal. Therefore, for substantial justice and equity, the additional evidences that are filed before the Tribunal are taken on record. Since the additional evidences are taken on record, we deem it appropriate to restore the issues to the file of the AO for fresh examination of the evidences and for deciding the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing

ITA Nos.2346/CHNY/2026 - 7 - Balaji Gadala adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. 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 29th June,2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एस.आर. रघुनाथा) (जॉज� जॉज� के) (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 29th June, 2026 RSR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Chennai 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. By Order Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.07.02 09:50:50 +05'30'

BALAJI GADALA,ROYAPURAM, CHENNAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

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