What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without properly considering the assessee's explanation for the delay. The averments in the affidavit for condonation of delay remained uncontroverted.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of approximately 6 months. The assessee claimed the delay was due to severe medical issues leading to a bedridden condition.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without condoning it, despite a plausible explanation supported by an uncontroverted affidavit.

Vijayalakshmi Macherla vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI BENCHES, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE ABY T VARKEY & HON’BLE INTURI RAMA RAO

For Respondent: Ms. R Anitha, Addl.CIT

आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], dated 29.01.2026 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the 2020-21.

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal :

“1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC has grossly erred in upholding the addition made by the learned Assessing officer amounting to Rs. 67,41,931 being dis-allowance of business expenses made by the business of the appellant during the year under consideration. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC has erred by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the appellant albeit knowing the fact that the delay was due to medical grounds and neither deliberate nor intentional. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC has erred by not considering the facts and merits of the case. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has grossly erred by not considering the petition under rule 46A of the appellant and consequently has erred in not considering the additional evidences provided by the appellant.” 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual deriving income from the business. The appellant is engaged in the business of providing consultant services for securing tenders for various projects of railways. The appellant filed Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2020- 21 on 13.01.2021 disclosing income of Rs.8,37,170/-. Against the said Return of Income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 05.09.2022 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at a total income of Rs.75,79,100/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer disallowed 90% of the expenses claimed as the appellant had failed to substantiate that the expenses are wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A) who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay of around 6 months. The appellant also filed petition seeking the condonation of delay on the ground that delay had occurred on account of severe medical issues which led to bedridden condition of the appellant was prevented appellant from filing the appeal within the specified time limit. However, the ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay by refusing to condone the delay by holding that the appellant could not demonstrate any sufficient cause for the delay after referring to numerous judicial precedents.

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 ld.CIT(A) ought not have dismissed the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the delay. The appellant filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay.

On the other hand, ld.Sr.DR vehemently opposed the above submissions.

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on the grounds of delay by refusing the condonation of delay. Admittedly, there is a delay of 135 days in presenting the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The appellant filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay on the ground that severe medical issues led to bedridden condition of the appellant were prevented appellant from filing the appeal within the specified time limit, as a result, appellant was not able to file the appeal within the stipulated time. However, ld.CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay by stating that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay. On careful perusal of the findings of ld.CIT(A), it would be clear that the ld.CIT(A) had not given findings as to how the explanation offered by the appellant for delay does not constitute a reasonable cause. The averments made in the affidavit remain uncontroverted by the learned Sr.DR.

In M.Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V.Laxmi Narain Rao AIR 1973 SC 627, it was held that an uncontroverted affidavit shall be taken as an affidavit on fact. The averments made in the Affidavit seeking the condonation of delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A), remain uncontroverted by the learned ld.CIT(A). In the absence of any material to the contrary, the averments made in the affidavit cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that the ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits. In the circumstances, we direct ld.CIT(A) to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ABY T VARKEY) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; �दनांक / Dated : 21st May, 2026 SGR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem. 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “सी” ब�च, चे�नई / DR, ITAT Chennai. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.

VIJAYALAKSHMI MACHERLA,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments