KALLAYIRAM DEEPALAKSHMI,MADURAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP. WARD 2(1), MDU, MADURAI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai dated 15.03.2018 for Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. In the instant appeals, the registry has noted the delay of 2853 days in filing the captioned appeal. 3. Assessee has filed the following prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal:

ITA No 1326/Chny/2026 (AY 2008-09) Kallayiram Deepalakshmi Vs ITO, W 2(1) :: 2 :: 1. The Petitioner is a Non-Resident Individual and a British Citizen, assessed to income tax by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-2(1), Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessing Officer"). 2. For the Assessment Year 2008-09, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 28.12.2010, determining the total income of the Petitioner at Rs. 18,83,100/- after making an addilion of Rs. 15,10,000/- by treating the cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained income. 3. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the "Ld. CIT(A)"]. The Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 15.03.2018 in ITA No. 49/A-12/2013-14, was pleased to dismiss the appeal ex parte on account of alleged non-response to hearing notices. The said appellate order is the subject matter of the present appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. 4. It is most respectfully submitted that the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was deemed to have been served on the Pelilioner on 15.03.2018 and, in terms of Section 253(3) of the Income-tax Act, the appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal ought to have been filed on or before 14.05.2018. However, the present appeal has been filed on 06.03.2026, resulting in a delay of 2853 days. 5. The Petitioner most respectfully submits that the delay of 2853 days in filing the present appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate, nor attributable to any negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides on her part. The delay has occurred solely due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the Petitioner, which constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of law and warrant condonation by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 6. It is submitted that the Petitioner had permanently left India for the United Kingdom on 19.08.2009 and has since been residing abroad, with only occasional visits to India. Owing to her non- resident status, the Petitioner had executed a Power of Attorney in

ITA No 1326/Chny/2026 (AY 2008-09) Kallayiram Deepalakshmi Vs ITO, W 2(1) :: 3 :: favour of M/s. Ramaswamy and Murali, Chartered Accountants, Chennai, to represent her in the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). The Petitioner's father, who was residing in India, was entrusted with the responsibility of coordinating the matter with the said Chartered Accountants in view of the Petitioner's absence from India. 7. After filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the Petitioner did not receive any communication whatsoever regarding the progress of the appeal, including hearing notices or the appellate order, either directly or through electronic means. The Petitioner was entirely dependent on her father and the authorised representatives for updates regarding the proceedings. 8. It is further submitted that the Petitioner's father began to suffer from severe and multiple health complications from January 2018 onwards and his health deteriorated significantly during the relevant period. Owing to his critical medical condition, he was unable to effectively attend to or monitor the ongoing tax proceedings or communicate any developments to the Petitioner. Unfortunately, the Petitioner's father passed away on 20.08.2018. It is reasonably inferred that due to his failing health, he could not inform the Petitioner about any communications received from the office of the Ld. CIT(A), including the impugned appellate order. 9. After the demise of her father, the Petitioner, being abroad and not having any direct knowledge of the proceedings, contacted the Chartered Accountant firm to ascertain the status of the appeal. The said firm informed the Petitioner that they had not received any updates regarding the appeal and assured her that she would be informed of any developments. Based on such representations and in the absence of any communication from the Department, the Petitioner continued under the bona fide belief that the appeal was still pending adjudication before the Ld. CIT(A). 10. It is submitted that the Petitioner first became aware of the dismissal of the appeal only in the third week of February 2026, when she attempted to sell her immovable property in India. During

ITA No 1326/Chny/2026 (AY 2008-09) Kallayiram Deepalakshmi Vs ITO, W 2(1) :: 4 :: the process, the prospective purchaser, upon verification of the Encumbrance Certificate, informed the Petitioner that the property had been attached by the Income Tax Department and could not be transacted. 11. Immediately thereafter, the Petitioner initiated enquiries and contacted the earlier Chartered Accountant firm, who advised her to engage a local Chartered Accountant in Madurai to ascertain the factual position. Upon such enquiry, it was revealed that the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) had already been dismissed and that the outstanding tax demand had led to attachment proceedings. 12. Thereafter, the Petitioner made diligent efforts to obtain a copy of the appellate order. Upon searching through her late father's personal records by the Petitioner's relative, the Petitioner's relative located the appellate order, which was found in an unopened cover. This clearly establishes that the order, though received, was never brought to the knowledge of the Petitioner due to the unfortunate circumstances of her father's ill health and subsequent demise. 13. It is most respectfully submitted that until February 2026, the Petitioner had absolutely no knowledge of either the hearing notices or the dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A). Immediately upon becoming aware of the same, the Petitioner acted with utmost diligence and promptitude in taking necessary steps to file the present appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal, without any further delay. 14. It is submitted that the entire delay has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the Petitioner, particularly the non-communication of the appellate order owing to the severe illness and subsequent demise of the Petitioner's father, coupled with the absence of any communication from the authorised representatives or the Department. The delay is thus neither intentional nor attributable to any lapse on the part of the Petitioner, but is a result of genuine and bona fide circumstances. 15. It is a well-settled principle of law that the expression "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay should be construed liberally so as

ITA No 1326/Chny/2026 (AY 2008-09) Kallayiram Deepalakshmi Vs ITO, W 2(1) :: 5 :: to advance substantial justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice must prevail, and that a litigant should not be denied an opportunity to have her case adjudicated on merits due to procedural delays arising from bona fide reasons. 16. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has a strong arguable case on merits, including issues that go to the root of the assessment, and denial of an opportunity to contest the same would result in grave injustice. No prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the delay is condoned, whereas irreparable loss and hardship would be caused to the Petitioner if the appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation alone. 17. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 2853 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits, in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play. 18. In support of the above contention, reliance is placed on the following judicial precedents:- 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst.Katiji & Ors. [1987] SCR (2) 387, wherein their Lordships held as under: "Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause

ITA No 1326/Chny/2026 (AY 2008-09) Kallayiram Deepalakshmi Vs ITO, W 2(1) :: 6 :: of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial Justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 20. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310 26311/2024, dated 31st January, 2025, has held that a justice- oriented and liberal approach should be taken while dealing with the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal. PRAYER In view of the facts and reasons stated above, the Petitioner humbly prays that the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to: a. Condone the delay of 2853 days in filing the appeal, and

ITA No 1326/Chny/2026 (AY 2008-09) Kallayiram Deepalakshmi Vs ITO, W 2(1) :: 7 :: b. Admit and hear the appeal filed on 06.03.2026 on merits, and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice.

(Kallayiram Deepalakshmi) 4. The above referred condonation prayer is supported by filing following elaborate affidavit of the assessee: AFFIDAVIT 1, Kallayiram Deepalakshmi, 5/340, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Anupanadi, Madurai 625009, Tamil Nadu do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under: 1. I am the Petitioner in the accompanying appeal filed before this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and as such, I am well acquainted with the facts of the case and competent to swear to this affidavit. 2. I submit that I am a Non-Resident Individual and a British Citizen, assessed to income tax by the Income Tax Officer, Non- Corporate Ward-2(1), Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessing Officer"). 3. For the Assessment Year 2008-09, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 28.12.2010, determining my total income at Rs. 18,83,100/- after making an addition of Rs. 15,10,000/- by treating cash deposits in my bank account as unexplained income. 4. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, I preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the "Ld. CIT(A)"]. The Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 15.03.2018 in ITA No. 49/A- 12/2013-14, dismissed the appeal ex parte on account of alleged non-response to hearing notices. The said order is the subject matter of the present appeal. 5. I submit that the appellate order is deemed to have been served on 15.03.2018 and, as per Section 253(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 14.05.2018.

ITA No 1326/Chny/2026 (AY 2008-09) Kallayiram Deepalakshmi Vs ITO, W 2(1) :: 8 :: However, the present appeal has been filed on 06.03.2026, resulting in a delay of 2853 days. 6. I most respectfully submit that the delay of 2853 days is neither wilful nor deliberate, nor due to negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides on my part. The delay has occurred solely due to unavoidable and bona fide circumstances beyond my control, constituting "sufficient cause". 7. I state that I permanently left India for the United Kingdom on 19.08.2009 and have been residing abroad since then, with only occasional visits to India. Due to my non-resident status, I had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of M/s. Ramaswamy and Murali, Chartered Accountants, Chennai, to represent me before the Ld. CIT(A). My father, who resided in India, was entrusted with coordinating with the said authorised representatives. 8. After filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), I did not receive any communication regarding the progress of the appeal, including hearing notices or the appellate order, either directly or electronically. I was entirely dependent on my father and authorised representatives for updates. 9. I state that my father began suffering from severe and multiple health complications from January 2018 onwards. His condition deteriorated significantly, rendering him incapable of attending to or monitoring the tax proceedings or communicating any developments to me. Unfortunately, he passed away on 20.08.2018. 10. I respectfully submit that due to his failing health during the relevant period, my father could not inform me about any communications received from the office of the Ld. CIT(A), including the appellate order dated 15.03.2018. 11. After my father's demise, I contacted the aforesaid Chartered Accountant firm to ascertain the status of the appeal. They informed me that they had not received any updates and assured me that I would be informed of any developments. Based on such

ITA No 1326/Chny/2026 (AY 2008-09) Kallayiram Deepalakshmi Vs ITO, W 2(1) :: 9 :: representation, and in the absence of any communication from the Department, I bona fide believed that the appeal was still pending. 12. I state that I first became aware of the dismissal of my appeal only in the third week of February 2026, when I attempted to sell my immovable property in India During this process, I was informed that the property had been attached by the Income Tax Department. 13. Immediately thereafter, I initiated enquiries and, upon advice, engaged a local Chartered Accountant to verify the status of my case. It was then revealed that my appeal had already been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) and that consequential recovery proceedings had been initiated. 14. Thereafter, I made earnest efforts to obtain a copy of the appellate order Upon searching my late father's records through a relative, the order was found in an unopened cover. This clearly establishes that the order, though received, was never brought to my knowledge due to the unfortunate circumstances. 15. I respectfully submit that until February 2026, I had absolutely no knowledge of the dismissal of my appeal. Immediately upon becoming aware, I acted with utmost diligence and filed the present appeal without any further delay. 16.1 submit that the entire delay has occurred due to circumstances beyond my control, particularly the non- communication of the appellate order due to my father's illness and demise, coupled with the absence of communication from authorised representatives or the Department. 17. I respectfully submit that it is a well-settled principle that the expression sufficient cause" should be liberally construed to advance substantial justice. I rely on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and other judicial precedents. 18. I further submit that I have a strong case on merits and that denial of an opportunity to contest the matter would result in grave

ITA No 1326/Chny/2026 (AY 2008-09) Kallayiram Deepalakshmi Vs ITO, W 2(1) :: 10 :: injustice. No prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the dolay is condoned. 19. In these circumstances, I humbly pray that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 2853 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits in the interest of justice. Verification I, the above-named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief, and information, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Place: United Kingdom Date: 11.05.2026 (Kallayiram Deepalakshmi) (Deponent) 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 2853 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay accompanied by a detailed affidavit explaining the circumstances which resulted in the belated filing of the appeal. 6. The ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee is a Non-Resident Individual and a British citizen residing in the United Kingdom since August 2009. It was submitted that after filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee had entrusted the follow-up of the appellate proceedings to her father residing in India and to her authorised representatives. It was further submitted that the assessee was not receiving any direct communication regarding the progress of the appeal and was entirely dependent upon her father and professional representatives for updates.

ITA No 1326/Chny/2026 (AY 2008-09) Kallayiram Deepalakshmi Vs ITO, W 2(1) :: 11 :: 7. It was further explained that the assessee's father suffered from serious and multiple health complications from January 2018 onwards and his health condition progressively deteriorated. Owing to his medical condition, he was unable to effectively attend to the tax proceedings or communicate any developments to the assessee. Subsequently, he passed away on 20.08.2018. According to the assessee, the appellate order dated 15.03.2018, though received at the Indian address, remained in an unopened cover amongst the records of her late father and was never brought to her knowledge. 8. The assessee has further stated on oath that after the demise of her father, she contacted the Chartered Accountant firm which had earlier represented her and was informed that no update regarding disposal of the appeal had been received by them. Consequently, she continued under a bona fide belief that the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was still pending adjudication. It is only during the third week of February 2026, when she proposed to sell an immovable property in India and was informed about attachment proceedings initiated by the Department, that she became aware of the existence of the outstanding demand and the dismissal of her appeal. Thereafter, she immediately initiated enquiries, obtained the appellate order and filed the present appeal without any further delay. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions of the assessee, the contents of the condonation petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof. We have also perused the passport and other material placed on record. The explanation furnished by the assessee indicates that the delay was occasioned due to a combination of exceptional circumstances, namely her non-resident status, dependence upon her father and authorised representatives

ITA No 1326/Chny/2026 (AY 2008-09) Kallayiram Deepalakshmi Vs ITO, W 2(1) :: 12 :: for monitoring the proceedings in India, the serious illness and eventual demise of her father during the relevant period, and her lack of actual knowledge regarding the dismissal of the first appellate proceedings. 10. It is a settled proposition of law that while considering an application for condonation of delay, the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal and justice-oriented interpretation so as to advance substantial justice. The courts have consistently held that where no mala fides, deliberate inaction or conscious negligence can be attributed to the litigant, a pragmatic approach is required while examining the explanation offered for the delay. 11. We are conscious of the fact that the delay involved in the present case is extraordinarily long. Ordinarily, such a prolonged delay would require strict scrutiny. However, the peculiar facts emerging from the record persuade us to take a liberal view. The affidavit filed by the assessee remains uncontroverted. There is nothing on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate, motivated or intended to gain any undue advantage. On the contrary, the sequence of events narrated by the assessee appears plausible and is supported by the circumstances surrounding the illness and subsequent demise of her father. The explanation offered demonstrates that the assessee was genuinely unaware of the dismissal of her appeal and that immediately upon acquiring knowledge of the same, she acted with reasonable promptitude in pursuing the present remedy. 12. We also find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was passed ex parte and the assessee seeks an opportunity to contest the additions on merits. In our considered view, substantial justice would be better served by affording such opportunity rather than

ITA No 1326/Chny/2026 (AY 2008-09) Kallayiram Deepalakshmi Vs ITO, W 2(1) :: 13 :: shutting the doors of adjudication solely on the ground of limitation. No irreparable prejudice is shown to be caused to the Revenue by condoning the delay, whereas refusal to condone the delay would result in denial of an opportunity to the assessee to have her grievance examined on merits. 13. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the explanation furnished by the assessee, and the principles governing condonation of delay laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. 14. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the delay of 2853 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 15. Before parting, we deem it appropriate to clarify that the present order condoning the extraordinary delay has been passed having regard to the unique and exceptional facts brought on record, particularly the non-resident status of the assessee, the serious illness and subsequent demise of the person entrusted with monitoring the proceedings, the asserted lack of knowledge regarding disposal of the appeal, and the prompt action taken immediately upon discovery of the impugned order. Therefore, this order shall be confined to the facts of the present case and shall not be treated as a precedent for condonation of extraordinary delays in other matters, each case being required to be examined on its own facts and merits. 16. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, we find that the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) has been passed ex parte. We further note that the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was originally filed on 28.06.2011,

ITA No 1326/Chny/2026 (AY 2008-09) Kallayiram Deepalakshmi Vs ITO, W 2(1) :: 14 :: whereas the appellate order came to be passed only on 15.03.2018, after a considerable lapse of nearly seven years. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law. The ld. CIT(A) shall afford reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter pass a speaking order dealing with the issues raised in appeal. 17. At the same time, we make it clear that the assessee shall extend full cooperation and diligently prosecute the appellate proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. In the event of any failure on the part of the assessee to participate in the proceedings or to comply with notices issued by the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law on the basis of material available on record. Ordered accordingly. 18. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 04th day of June 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (प�ावती एस) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (PADMAVATHY S) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद$य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %या�यक सद$य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No 1326/Chny/2026 (AY 2008-09) Kallayiram Deepalakshmi Vs ITO, W 2(1) :: 15 :: चे%नई/Chennai, 'दनांक/Dated: 04th p June, 2026. SNDP, Sr. PS

आदेश क� ��त(ल)प अ*े)षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ&/Appellant 2. '(थ&/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु)/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय'ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड,फाईल/GF