What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's delay condonation petition, finding the explanation for the delay to be incorrect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay. The assessee claimed the assessment order was received much later, but the CIT(A) found this explanation incorrect based on electronic correspondence.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned based on the assessee's explanation.

Venugopal Jayanthi, Vellore vs Assistant Commissioner, Vellore | ITAT Chennai 2026

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.1787/Chny/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Venugopal Jayanthi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Officers Line, 141, Annai Terassa First St, Vellore, 632001. Phase 3, Sathvachari, Vellore, 632009.

[PAN: AACPV2674D] (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 23.02.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17.

When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any adjournment petition. Thus, the

2 I.T.A. No.1787/Chny/26

assessee called absent and set ex parte. We proceed to hear the ld. DR and decide the appeal on merits.

At the outset, it is noted that the assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 30.08.2019 before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 1757 days. Assessee filed delay condonation petition stating that order was received only on 04.07.2024. Ld. CIT(A), considering the electronic correspondence which were reproduced in page No. 11 and 12 of the impugned order, held the explanation of the assessee is incorrect and rejected the delay condonation petition and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine.

Ld. DR Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT, relied on the order of ld. CIT(A).

On an examination of the impugned order, we note that assessment order was passed on 13.08.2019. The same was served through email on the same day. Assessee did not bring on any evidence before the ld. CIT(A) in support of its statement that no assessment order received by her. Further, ld. CIT(A) taken into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suo-Motto order dated 23.09.2021, held the delay of only 1042 days but not 1757. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the delay

3 I.T.A. No.1787/Chny/26

condonation petition filed by the assessee. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

In the result, the 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 MM/- आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.

VENUGOPAL JAYANTHI,VELLORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, VELLORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments