What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, granted one more opportunity in the interest of justice and equity. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for consideration of a proper delay condonation petition with supporting evidence.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 285 days in filing. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's explanation for the delay due to lack of supporting documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present a proper delay condonation petition.

Syedsalar Nizamuddeen, Dharmapuri vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 17.06.2026Pronounced: 17.06.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.03.2026 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2021-22.

ITA Nos.2397/CHNY/2026 - 2 - Syedsalar Nizamuddeen 2. At the outset, we note that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) dismissed the appeal in limine without going into the merits, as the delay of 285 days in filing the appeal was not condoned. The FAA, in para 7.2 of the order, has extracted the reasons stated by the assessee in Form 35 for the delay. However, since the assessee had not furnished any supporting documents, the FAA rejected the explanation and dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay.

Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that as stated in Form 35, the delay occurred on account of the assessee's prolonged ill health. It was contended that the FAA, without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to explain the reasons for delay, dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay on the ground that no supporting medical records, prescriptions, or other documentary evidence had been furnished to substantiate the assessee’s claim. The Ld. AR therefore prayed that, in the interest of justice, the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to file a proper delay condonation petition along with affidavit and necessary supporting documents before the First Appellate Authority.

The Ld.DR supported the order of the FAA.

ITA Nos.2397/CHNY/2026 - 3 - Syedsalar Nizamuddeen 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On going through the order of the FAA, it is seen that though the assessee had stated reasons for the delay in Form 35 however, no separate petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit and supporting evidence was filed. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not filing the delay condonation application before the FAA. However, in the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to explain the delay. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the FAA. The assessee is directed to file a proper delay condonation petition, along with affidavit and necessary evidence, explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The FAA shall consider the same and pass order in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17th June,2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एस.आर. रघुनाथा) (जॉज� जॉज� के) (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 17th June, 2026

ITA Nos.2397/CHNY/2026 - 4 - Syedsalar Nizamuddeen

RSR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Salem/Coimbatore 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. By Order Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.06.22 12:27:09 +05'30'

SYEDSALAR NIZAMUDDEEN,DHARMAPURI vs. ITO, WARD-1, , DHARMAPURI

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