SPEED TEAM WIND TECH PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUNELVELI,TIRUNELVELI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1 TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 335/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2026AY 2020-217 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 Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee were general and did not justify the inordinate delay of 1,088 days. The Tribunal emphasized that liberal interpretation of limitation law should not frustrate statutory provisions.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 1,088 days. The assessee, a newly incorporated private limited company, cited lack of awareness of e-proceedings and limited resources as reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained by the assessee to warrant condonation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Hearing: 04.05.2026Pronounced: 13.05.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ 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.335 /Chny/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Speed Team Wind Tech Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Limited, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, 627 Income Tax, Circle -1, 811. Tirunelveli, 627011. [PAN: AAUCS0312E]

(अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. G. Baskar, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 04.05.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 13.05.2026 : 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 09.01.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, Hyderabad for the assessment year 2020- 21.

2.

At the outset, we note that the assessee filed the return of income on 31.3.2021, the extended due date being 15.2.2021. CPC processed the said return of income by arriving at the total income of the assessee

2 I.T.A. No.335/Chny/26

at Rs.1,32,37,390/-, as against the returned income of Rs.50,02,850/-, vide an intimation dated 24.12.2021. The assessee, being aggrieved by the said intimation, filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 1,088 days. The ld. CIT(A) reproduced the reasons explained through an affidavit in pages 2 to 5 of the impugned order. The ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to show sufficient cause for the delay and rejected the delay condonation explanation.

3.

The ld. AR Mr. G. Baskar, Advocate drew our attention to the facts reproduced in the impugned order and submits that the assessee ought to have filed an appeal before 31.5.2022; however, it was filed on 24.5.2025. Ld. AR submits that the assessee was newly incorporated and was the first entity for its promoters from its inception, and it has been diligently complying with the statutory obligations of filing of the return of income and the audit reports. He submits that the assessee was not aware of the current e-proceedings and its compliance mechanism under the e-portal. The intimation, therefore, issued by the CPC went unnoticed. He argued that the said delay was not due to any deliberate neglect of the assessee but was rather an inordinate lapse due to its operation with limited resource employees under the organizational structure. Further, he drew our attention to para No. 6 and submits that in order to efficiently

3 I.T.A. No.335/Chny/26

comply with the taxation obligations under GST, Income Tax, and Customs, the assessee, during the month of May 2025, established a separate unit by appointing new staff exclusively for looking into the tax- related matters, handling GST returns, etc. Further, he submits that on verification of the e-portal, one of the staff members found the intimation order and immediately brought it to the notice of the assessee. The assessee immediately consulted a new tax practitioner and, upon his advice, filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). He argued that the filing of the appeal with delay is neither willful nor wanton but due to the circumstances mentioned in the relevant paragraphs of the affidavit. Ld. AR prayed to condone the delay, as no loss would be caused to the department; otherwise, the assessee will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.

4.

The ld. DR Ms. Anita, Addl. CIT submits that the assessee nowhere explained the day-to-day reasons for the delay, and the delay is an inordinate delay of 1,088 days; the ld. CIT(A) rightly held that the assessee has failed to show sufficient cause on day to day basis. She submits that the ld. CIT(A) considered the reasons explained by the assessee in the impugned order and the assessee is expected to give reasons on a day-to-day basis. She drew our attention to page No. 6 of

4 I.T.A. No.335/Chny/26

the impugned order and submits that the assessee is a private limited company and has been filing returns of income and audit reports, and it cannot plead ignorance about the time limits for filing an appeal. The assessee ought to have been vigilant about the statutory timeline in order to seek relief. She vehemently argued that in the present case, the delay in filing of the appeal is more than 3 years, which is inordinate, and the assessee could not have been unaware of the appeal to be filed. She referred to the reasons explained by the assessee which are reproduced in the impugned order and submits that the reasons is no way justify the inordinate delay of more than 3 years in filing of the appeal. She supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and prayed to reject the submissions of the ld. AR in condoning the delay.

5.

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee is a private limited company, having been incorporated on 23.12.2013, has been filing returns of income regularly since its incorporation. We find that the assessee filed the return of income within the extended due date, which was processed under intimation dated 24.12.2021, disallowing an amount of Rs.82,34,554/- on account of section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”). As discussed above, one of the directors of the assessee explained the

5 I.T.A. No.335/Chny/26

reasons from para Nos. 3 to 9 of the said affidavit, which were in page Nos. 2 to 5 of the impugned order. On the examination of the same, we find that the only contention of the assessee is that it has no knowledge of current e-assessment proceedings and its compliance mechanism under the e-portal. Further, it was stated that delay is also due to limited resources of employees under their organizational structure, as per para No. 5 of the said affidavit. We find the said reasons are general in nature and in no way justify the delay of 1,088 days rightly found by the ld. CIT(A), further, the assessee is expected to give an explanation for the said delay on a day-to-day basis. The assessee has not given any reason explaining the delay on a day-to-day basis, except making a statement that it has limited resources of employees and is new to e-portal assessment proceedings and compliance thereof, in our opinion, the ld. CIT(A) rightly rejected the delay condonation petition.

6.

We find time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Guruswamy & ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025, dated 08.01.2025 has reminded that the concept of “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation. Further, reasons must satisfy the authorities that the assessee was prevented by any

6 I.T.A. No.335/Chny/26

sufficient cause, unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the authorities should not allow the petition for condonation of delay, in case the petition for condonation is allowed in condoning the delay without any justification, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to legislature. Having keeping in mind, we find in the present case, the length of delay is definitely a relevant matter that this Tribunal must take into consideration while considering the reasons explained in the delay condonation petition. It is an established principle where an appeal presented with abnormal delay, beyond limitation, the assessee has to explain as to what is the reasonable cause, which really prevented the assessee to approach the appellate authority within time. As we discussed above, since the assessee failed to give sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time, we hold that the assessee’s reasons for the inordinate delay of 1088 cannot be interpreted liberally, we, therefore, reject the condonation petition filed by the assessee for the delay of 1088 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 13th May, 2026 at Chennai.

7 I.T.A. No.335/Chny/26

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 13.05.2026 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.

More judgments on Section 43B

All 7,161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43B →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →