What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing bonafide reasons. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the delay condonation petition, subject to the assessee paying a cost.

The assessee's appeals were filed with a significant delay. The assessee claimed the delay was due to notices being sent to incorrect email addresses, preventing them from receiving orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable and if the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration by the CIT(A).

Gajendran Govindapa, Krishnagiri vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2026

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Hearing: 15.04.2026Pronounced: 29.04.2026

आदेश/O R D E R

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders both dated 20.03.2025 by the ld. Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC],

Delhi for Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively.

Since, the issues raised in both the appeals are similar and 2. identical on the same facts, upon hearing both the parties and with the

2 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.752 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.752 No.752 & 753/Chny/2026 No.752 753/Chny/2026 753/Chny/2026 753/Chny/2026

consent we proceed to hear both the appeals together for convenience

and pass consolidated order.

We find these appeals were filed with a delay of 255 days. The

assessee filed an affidavit stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the

parties and perusal of the affidavit, we find the reasons are bone fide

which really prevented the assessee for filing the appeal in time. Thus,

delay of 255 days condoned.

First, we shall take up ITA No. 752/Chny/2026 for A.Y.2016-17.

The ld AR drew our attention to the Para 2.12 of the impugned

order and submits that the ld CIT(A) rejected the delay condonation

petition for not satisfaction of reasons explained by the assessee. He

submits that the ld AO sent notices to wrong e-mail IDs and drew our

attention to the Para No.8 of the delay condonation petition argued that

the actual registered e-mail ID is rangvathos@gmail.com, but the

notices were sent to manjunnkutty55078@gmail.com which is not at all

related to the assessee, thereby no order was received by the

assessee. The ld AR pleaded one more opportunity in remanding the

3 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.752 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.752 No.752 & 753/Chny/2026 No.752 753/Chny/2026 753/Chny/2026 753/Chny/2026

matter to the file of ld CIT(A) with a direction to consider the delay

condonation petition and to condone the delay.

The ld DR vehemently opposed the same and contended that if

at all this Tribunal remand the matter to the file of ld CIT(A), there

should be a payment of cost.

Considering the submissions of ld AR and ld DR and in the

interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of

ld CIT(A) for fresh consideration for considering the delay condonation

petition and to condone the delay on satisfaction with the payment of

cot of Rs.5,000/- in favour of the “Tamil Nadu State Legal Services

Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras”. The assessee shall pay

the cost of Rs.5,000/- in favour of “Tamil Nadu State Legal Services

Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras” within 30 days from the

date of receipt of the order and shall furnish the same to the ld CIT(A).

Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical

purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

statistical purposes.

4 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.752 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.752 No.752 & 753/Chny/2026 No.752 753/Chny/2026 753/Chny/2026 753/Chny/2026

Next, we shall take up ITA No.753/Chny/2026 for A.Y.2017-18.