VENKATESH KALYANASUNDARAM,TIRUPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), TIRUPUR

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 17.12.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2015-16.

:- 2 -: ITA No.1052/Chny/2026 2. At the very outset, we notice that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- 5.1.17 I have carefully considered the petition for condonation of delay, the 6.1.1 explanation furnished by the appellant in Form No. 35, the chronology of events and the material available on record. In the present case, the assessment order was served on the appellant on 24.11.2023. Instead of availing the statutory appellate remedy within the prescribed time, the appellant chose to file a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 12.04.2024 in W.P. No. 15874 of 2024 and W.M.P. No. 17308 of 2024, disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the appellant to file an appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of the order, with a specific direction that if such appeal was filed within the said period, the appellate authority shall not insist upon the period of limitation. Accordingly, the period of 30 days granted by the Hon'ble High Court expired on 12.05.2024. However, the appellant has filed the present appeal only on 19.10.2024. Thus, even after granting full benefit of the Hon'ble High Court's order, there is a further unexplained delay of 160 days beyond the period expressly permitted by the Hon'ble High Court. The liberty granted by the Hon'ble High Court was conditional and limited, and the benefit of non- insistence on limitation was clearly made subject to filing of the appeal within the stipulated period of 30 days. Since the appellant failed to comply with this condition, he cannot seek automatic condonation of delay by merely relying upon the High Court's order. Further, the appellant has not furnished any satisfactory explanation or supporting evidence explaining the delay of 160 days after 12.05.2024. No material has been brought on record to show that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the time allowed by the Hon'ble High Court. The explanation furnished is vague and does not demonstrate reasonable diligence or bona fide conduct. It is a settled legal position that limitation is founded on public policy and that condonation of delay cannot be granted in a routine or mechanical manner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basavaraj & Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 has held that courts should not condone delay unless sufficient cause is clearly established. Similarly, in Office of the Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd. (348 ITR 7), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that vague explanations

:- 3 -: ITA No.1052/Chny/2026 and casual assertions do not constitute sufficient cause and that condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Applying these settled principles to the facts of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to explain the substantial and inordinate delay even after the expiry of the period granted by the Hon'ble High Court. Accordingly, the petition for condonation of delay is rejected.

5.1.18 Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal against the impugned order lacks merit for condonation, rendering the appeal inadmissible and non-maintainable as it was filed far beyond the stipulated time period without sufficient cause. Accordingly. there is no basis to interfere with the order passed by the A.O and hence, I am not inclined to adjudicate the case on its merits.”

:- 4 -: ITA No.1052/Chny/2026 u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act, assessee filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Madras High Court seeking to quash the same. The Hon’ble Madras High Court vide judgment dated 28.08.2024 dismissed the writ petition filed by the assessee. However, the Hon’ble High Court stated that assessee has given liberty to challenge the assessment order by way of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court. If such appeal is being filed as directed, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate order on merits without rejecting it on the ground of limitation. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble High Court reads as follows:- “7. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the order impugned herein by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such appeal being filed by the petitioner as directed, the appellate authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, without rejecting it on the ground of limitation and without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”

:- 5 -: ITA No.1052/Chny/2026 Hence the appeal filed by the assessee is restored to the files of the FAA. The FAA is directed to consider the issue on merits. It is ordered accordingly.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21st 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 21st April, 2026 RSR आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Coimbatore 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. By Order Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.04.24 10:10:47 +05'30'