SHEKH KUTBUDDIN HABIB,COIMBATORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE CBE

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual deriving income by way of commission and other sources. The appellant filed Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2019-20 on 31.08.2019 under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 disclosing income of Rs.7,02,810/-. The said Return of Income was processed by the CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 14.05.2020 at total income of Rs.1,40,73,065/- being business income.

Being aggrieved by the said intimation, a petition u/s.154 of the Act was filed on 24.01.2022. The same was came to be rejected vide order dated 22.02.2022.

Being Aggrieved by order passed u/s.154 of the Act, an appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A), with a delay of 1342 days. The appellant also filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay on the ground that the order passed u/s.154 was not served upon the appellant, but by uploading only on Income Tax Portal. The appellant is not well-versed to verify the emails on the daily basis as the appellant is a Senior Citizen. It is further submitted that following Covid-19 Pandemic, the appellant faced severe health issues and it is only after the demand notice, recovery proceedings was issued on 30.05.2025 the appellant had come to know of the order passed u/s.154 of the Act. However, the ld.CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay by holding that the appellant had failed to show sufficient cause, accordingly, dismissed the appeal in limine.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The learned Counsel submits that the appellant had properly explained the delay before the ld.CIT(A). Without appreciating the explanation offered by the appellant, the ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine. Therefore, he submits that the order of ld.CIT(A) be set-aside and remit back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merits in accordance with law.

On the other hand, Learned Sr.DR vehemently opposed the above submissions and submits that the appellant had not offered a cogent explanation in support of delay of 1342 days. Therefore, ld.CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay.

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration is whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground of delay by refusing to condone the delay. We find that the appellant offered explanation for delay which are extracted by the ld.CIT(A). The reasons given by the appellant are that the appellant was never served upon the order passed u/s.154 of the Act and he was a Senior Citizen not accustomed to check emails, it was only after the arrear outstanding demand notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer on 30.05.2025, the appellant came to know of the order passed u/s.154 of the Act. The appellant also filed a Medical Certificate vide copy image which is scanned below :

On perusal of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the explanation offered by the appellant is not bonafide as the appellant himself uploaded the application u/s.154 of the Act digitally and further we find from the Medical Certificate produced, it is very clear that it is not even dated and not certified by the Medical Doctor. This only shows that the applicant was not diligent in pursuing appeal, the appellant had failed to show the existence of sufficient cause for delay and the ld.CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the appeal by refusing to condone the delay.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th June, 2026.