MAHENDHIRAN THIYAGARAJAN,CHENGALPATTU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, TIRUVALLUR, TIRUVALLUR

Since identical facts and issues are involved in all these four appeals, these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts relevant in the ITA No.1842/CHNY/2026 are stated herein:

The Assessee in ITA No.1842/CHNY/2026 raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi ("Ld. CIT(A)") has grossly erred in declining to condone the delay in filing the appeal, without judiciously exercising the discretion vested under section 249(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 and without properly appreciating that the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause and has further erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudication on merits, thereby defeating substantive justice, acting contrary to the settled principles governing condonation of delay as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, and rendering the impugned order arbitrary, unjust, and unsustainable in law.

Being aggrieved by levy of penalty, the appellant preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 481 days. The appellant also filed a petition seeking that the condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of the tax consultant inadvertently missed the notices, orders issued by the Assessing Officer and the appellant was not aware of the same. It was further stated that the appellant had come to know of the impugned assessment order only on receiving the phone call from Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in the second week of November 2025 regarding the outstanding tax payment. However, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) had refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of delay.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The ld.Counsel submits that having regard to the explanation offered before the ld.CIT(A) explaining the reasons for delay, the ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits.

On the other hand, Learned Sr.DR submits that the ld.CIT(A) had properly dealt with the explanation offered by the appellant explaining the reasons for delay. The ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal by holding that no sufficient cause were shown for the delay, therefore, no interference by this Tribunal is warranted.

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 418 days in presenting appeal before him. The appellant offered an explanation stating the reasons for delay which is extracted by the ld.CIT(A) vide para 5 of the impugned order. From the reasons given by the appellant, it is clear that the appellant has blamed the tax consultant as he had not attended to hearing notices issued by the Assessing Officer and also not brought to the notice of the appellant the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. It was only on receiving the phone call from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in the month of November 2025 about the outstanding demand, the appellant had come to know of the order passed by Assessing Officer. The said explanation was dealt by the ld.CIT(A) and after making a reference to the numerous judicial precedents proceeded to hold that the appellant had not shown a sufficient cause for the delay, accordingly refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. We had carefully perused the impugned order and the explanation offered by the appellant explaining the reasons for delay in filing of appeal before the ld.CIT(A).

We find that in the explanation offered by the appellant, the appellant had neither given any particulars in the Affidavit as to the name of the Income Tax Consultant, who was given the charge of pursuing the assessment proceedings. If the assessee is to blame the professional, for the delay or lapses in filing the appeal, the appellant had to produce the Affidavit from the concerned Counsel which the appellant failed to do so. Further, the ld.CIT(A) had referred to the numerous judgments including the Jurisdictional High Court’s decision in the case of Madhu Dadha vs. CIT 317 ITR 458 (Mad) [2010] 186 Taxmann 8 (Madras). The appellant had not made any submissions before us as to how the ratio of the judgments relied upon by the ld.CIT(A) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we do not see any reason to take a different view from the view taken by the ld.CIT(A) in the matter of condonation of delay. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the assessee.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.1842/CHNY/2026 stands dismissed.

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos.1843, 1844 & 1845/CHNY/2026 are dismissed.

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th May, 2026.