SUNDARAM KESAVAMOORTHY,THIRUKKATTALAI POST, PUDUKOTTAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), TIRUCHIRAPPALLI, INCOME TAX OFFICE, CANTONMENT, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

ITA 1766/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2026AY 2017-20183 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order rejecting the delay condonation petition. Since the assessee did not provide any representation or justification for the delay, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay of 1728 days. The assessee's explanation for the delay, that they were unaware of e-proceedings, was rejected by the CIT(A). The assessee also failed to appear before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable. The secondary issue was the lack of representation and justification from the assessee before the ITAT.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Hearing: 13.05.2026Pronounced: 15.05.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी इंटूरी रामाराव, लेखा सद एवं �ी एस.एस. िव#ने% रिव, �ाियक सद के सम& । Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1766/Chny/2026 िनधा(रण वष(/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sundaram Kesavamoorthy, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of No. 3715, Alangudi Main Road, Income Tax, Thirukkattalai Post, Circle -1(1), Ashok Nagar, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001. Pudukottai – 622 303. [PAN: AKBPK-3703-B] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-थ+/Respondent) अपीलाथ+ की ओर से / Appellant by : None ,-थ+ की ओर से/Respondent by Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 13.05.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 15.05.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [herein after “CIT(A)] for the assessment year 2017-18.

We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. The assessee called absent. We proceed to hear the ld.DR, Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT, and pass order by examining the material evidence available on record.

:-2-: ITA No: 1766/Chny/2026

At the outset, we find the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 1728 days against the order dated 28.12.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer [herein after ‘AO’]. The ld.CIT(A) issued notices which is evident from para no. 4 of the impugned order, wherein no compliances were made. With reference to delay it was only explained that the assessee was not aware of the e-proceedings and notices served by online, which is evident from para no. 5.1 of the impugned order, wherein the ld.CIT(A) held the same as not acceptable and rejected the delay condonation petition. Before us no representation whatsoever made by the assessee with reference to make submissions with the reasons of an inordinate delay before the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, on perusal of the impugned order, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) in rejecting the delay condonation petition and it is justified. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 15th May, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 15.05.2026 JPV आदेश की ,ितिलिप अ4ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ+/Appellant, 2.,-थ+/ Respondent,

:-3-: ITA No: 1766/Chny/2026

आयकर आयु5/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय ,ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड( फाईल/GF.

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.05.19 16:20:49 +05'30'

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →