What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating the cause was bona fide and the assessee did not deliberately delay filing. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The assessee filed an appeal physically within 7 days of the assessment order, but it was not processed electronically. Realizing this, the assessee filed electronically after a delay of 589 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned due to bona fide reasons.

Ramesh Sridevi Gambeer vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 20.04.2026Pronounced: 22.06.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/ADDL/JCIT (A)-7, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 29.12.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2017-18.

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee drawing our attention to the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on its merit, but

ITA No. 916 /Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18) Ramesh Sridevi Gambeer :: 2 :: dismissed the appeal refusing to condone the delay of 589 days in filing of the appeal before him. In this regard, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessment order was passed by the AO on 26.12.2019 and the assessee promptly filed an appeal on 02.02.2020 (i.e. within 7 days) before the Ld.CIT(A) Chennai, since in the demand-notice it was mentioned that in case if assessee wishes to file appeal against the assessment order, then it shall be filed before the Ld.CIT(A) Chennai. Hence, the assessee filed physically the appeal papers along with the Form No.35, [statement of facts, grounds of appeal, copy of the assessment order and copy of challan for payment of appeal fees] before the Ld.CIT(A) Chennai, and the Ld AR pointed out that assessee was unable to file the appeal electronically through e-portal, because the portal didn’t displayin its drop down menu for filing of appeal, hence, assessee physically filed the same in the office of the Ld.CIT(A) and received acknowledgement of it with the seal of the office of the Ld.CIT(A) Chennai dated 02.01.2020, and kept before us a copy of the same. A perusal of the same reveals that it is a covering letter to CIT(A) Chennai of filing of appeal and it has the acknowledgement given by office of CIT(A) of having received the copy of it in physical mode. Veracity of such a document has been certified by the Ld.AR who had filed the same physically at the office of CIT(A) i.e. CA, Mr. J Vignesh Membership No.245317. And thereafter, assessee noticed that no action/notice was taken/issued by the office of the Ld.CIT(A)

ITA No. 916 /Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18) Ramesh Sridevi Gambeer :: 3 :: Hence, the assessee enquired and found that since the appeal has not been preferred in electronic mode, no action was initiated in the appeal filed physically. Realizing the same, the assessee is noted to have again filed electronically the appeal on 04.09.2021, which resulted in the delay of 589 days.

Having noted the aforesaid facts and after perusal of the covering letter dated 02.01.2020 with acknowledgement of the office of the Ld.CIT(A) Chennai 600034, which has been certified as true copy by the CA, Mr. J. Vignesh who filed the same, we find that assessee had filed the appeal albeit in physical form within 7 days of receiving the assessment order dated 26.12.2019; and realizing that no action is being initiated on the said papers filed, the assessee is noted to have electronically filed the same on 04.09.2021, which resulted in the delay of 589 days in filing of the appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Since, the cause of the delay is noted to be bona fide, the assessee cannot be said to have deliberately not filed the appeal in time. Hence, considering the conduct of assessee, we do not accept the action of the Ld.CIT(A) refusing to condone the delay of 589 days. Hence, we condone the delay and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. The assessee is directed to file all the relevant

ITA No. 916 /Chny/2026 (AY 2017-18) Ramesh Sridevi Gambeer :: 4 :: documents and written submissions in support of his grounds of appeal; and Ld.CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal after considering the same, in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 22nd day of June, 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (इंटूरी रामा राव) (एबी टी. वक�) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 22nd June, 2026. YS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

Digitally signed YASHVI by YASHVIR SINGH R SINGH Date: 2026.07.07 12:36:31 +05'30'

RAMESH SRIDEVI GAMBEER,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-3(5), CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments