What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided for the delay were not sufficient and reasonable. The period between the partner's death and the impugned order's passing was not adequately explained. The Tribunal emphasized that liberal interpretation of limitation laws should not override statutory provisions.

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 854 days. The assessee's partner, who handled all tax matters, passed away, and the other partner lacked knowledge of the business affairs. The assessee claimed the delay was due to the partner's health complications and subsequent death.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned based on the reasons provided by the assessee, considering the inordinate delay and lack of sufficient cause.

Athityaa Builders, Salem vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

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

Hearing: 15.06.2026Pronounced: 17.06.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ ए’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ 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. 1905/Chny/2026 िनधा'रण वष'/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Athityaa Builders, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Flat No.T2, Prabhavathi Classic Ward -1(1), Apartment, Salem. Sri Rama Temple Road, Egipura, Bangalore – 560 047. [PAN:ABFFA-7268-J] (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,थ*/Respondent) अपीलाथ* की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCA +,थ* की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. S. Manoj Prakash, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 15.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 17.06.2026 : 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 27.09.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.

2 ITA No. 1905/Chny/2026

We find this appeal was filed with a delay of 854 days. The

assessee filed notarized affidavit dated 09.06.2026 explaining the

reasons. The ld.AR, Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCA, drew our

attention to Para no.3 of the said affidavit and submits that the assessee

is a partnership firm consisting of two partners namely Mr. Rajan and

Mr. Sabarinathan, who is son of Mr. Rajan. He submits that the said

partners had already discontinued their business activities and was not

carrying on any active operations during the time of assessment or

appeal proceedings. He submits that the entire affairs of the firm

including tax matters and correspondence with the Income-tax

Department were been exclusively handled by one of the partners Mr.

Rajan, who is father of another partner Mr. Sabarinathan. He submits

that Mr. Rajan unfortunately passed away on 11.04.2023 and his son

Mr. Sabarinathan being a only partner in his father’s business has no

knowledge of the business affairs and was employed at HK

Constructions, Bangalore. He vehemently argued during the relevant

period Mr. Rajan was suffering from serious health complications

including Coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney

disease and other related ailments and due to his condition he was

unable to effectively attend to the pending income tax proceedings. He

3 ITA No. 1905/Chny/2026

argued vehemently that the delay in filing of the present appeal is neither

wilful nor deliberate, but due to reasons explained in para no.3 to 5 of

the notarized affidavit.

The ld.DR, Shri. S. Manoj Prakash, JCIT, submits that the delay of

854 days is inordinate delay and the reasons stated by the assessee are

not showing sufficient cause. Further, he argued that the assessee has

to make out a sufficient cause in giving explanation on day-to-day basis

and drew our attention to the impugned order, which was passed on

27.09.2023. He argued that the reasons stated in para no. 3 to 5 of the

affidavit are not acceptable and prayed to reject the same.

Having heard both the parties, we note that the main contention

raised by the ld.AR is that one of the partners Mr.Rajan, was suffering

from serious health complications and he passed away on 11.04.2023.

The ld.DR rightly pointed out that the impugned order was passed on

27.09.2023 and the assessee failed to give any reasonable explanation

constituting a sufficient cause from April to September, 2023. We find

the reasons stated in the affidavit in para no. 3 to 5 are not reasonable

in showing sufficient cause which really prevented the assessee in filing

4 ITA No. 1905/Chny/2026

the appeal in time. 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 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

5 ITA No. 1905/Chny/2026

inordinate delay cannot be interpreted liberally, we, therefore, reject the condonation petition filed by the assessee for the delay of 854 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 17th June, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Chennai, Dated: 17.06.2026 JPV आदेश की +ितिलिप अ3ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ*/Appellant, 2.+,थ*/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु4/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय +ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड' फाईल/GF.

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.06.18 16:54:16 +05'30'

ATHITYAA BUILDERS,SALEM vs. ITO, W-1(1), SALEM

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments