What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the FAA, finding the reason provided to be reasonable. The matter was remitted back to the FAA for adjudication on merits.

The assessee's appeals were dismissed in limine by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) due to a delay in filing. The assessee cited unfamiliarity with e-proceedings as the reason for not being aware of the notices and subsequent penalty orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the FAA should be condoned due to the assessee's unfamiliarity with e-proceedings and lack of awareness of notices.

Venus Textiles, Karur vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND MS PADMAVATHY S

Hearing: 21.04.2026Pronounced: 28.04.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against three orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, all dated 09.12.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2017-18 & 2018-19.

:- 2 -: ITA Nos.1206 to 1208/Chny/2026

At the very outset, we note that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) has dismissed the appeals in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. The FAA had not condoned the delay of 663 days in ITA No.1206/CHNY/2026, 28 days in ITA No.1207/CHNY/2026 and 20 days in ITA No.1208/CHNY/2026 in filing the appeals before him. The FAA observed that the assessee had stated the reason for delay in Form 35. However, the FAA dismissed the appeals of the assessee, on the ground that the assessee failed to establish sufficient cause of delay.

Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the penalty orders passed by the AO were ex-parte. It was stated that the assessee was not well versed with e-proceedings and hence, was not aware of the notices issued by the AO through the portal. Therefore, the assessee was unaware of the penalty orders being passed ex-parte. Later only when the assessee became aware of the penalty orders, filed the appeals before the FAA. Therefore, the Ld.AR prayed that the delay in filing the appeals before the FAA be condoned.

The Ld.DR supported the orders of the FAA.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the orders of the FAA, we note that the assessee had stated the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals;

:- 3 -: ITA Nos.1206 to 1208/Chny/2026

however, the FAA dismissed the appeals on the ground that the assessee failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee was unaware of the hearing notices issued by the AO and subsequent, penalty orders, since the assessee was not well versed with e-proceedings. The Ld.AR further submitted that the quantum assessments with regard to these penalty orders are pending before the FAA. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the reason stated by the assessee seems quite reasonable and hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeals before FAA and also direct him to admit the appeals and adjudicate the same on merits. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of FAA and remit the matter back to his file for adjudicating the issue on merits. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28th April, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (प�मावती एस) (जॉज� जॉज� के) (PADMAVATHY S) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 28th April, 2026 RSR

:- 4 -: ITA Nos.1206 to 1208/Chny/2026

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Madurai 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. By Order Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.04.30 10:23:20 +05'30'

VENUS TEXTILES,KARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 KARUR, KARUR INCOME TAX OFFICE

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