What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's readiness to prosecute the case and the claim of non-receipt of orders due to non-residence, directed the CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation petition and decide the issues on merits.

The assessee's appeals were dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) for not condoning a significant delay. The assessee claimed non-residence during the assessment and appellate proceedings prevented receipt of notices and orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and if so, whether the appeal should be decided on merits.

Parthasarathy Lakshminarasimhan vs DCIT | 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 10.12.2025 by the ld. Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/JCIT, Hyderabad, for Assessment Year

2020-21 & 2021-22 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.761 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.761 No.761 & 762/Chny/2026 No.761 762/Chny/2026 762/Chny/2026 762/Chny/2026

consent we proceed to hear both the appeals together for convenience

and pass consolidated order.

First, we shall take up ITA No. 761/Chny/2026 for A.Y.2020-21.

The ld AR Mr. M. Govindarajan, submits that the ld CIT(A)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the

delay of 378 days. He submits that during the course of assessment as

well as first appellate proceedings the assessee was non-residence

thereby, he could not receive notices as well as the order of the ld AO.

The assessee now is ready to prosecute its case as he is resident now in

India. The ld AR pleaded for one more opportunity in remanding the

matter to the file of ld CIT(A) for a fresh consideration of delay

condonation petition and to condone the delay.

The ld DR reported no objection.

On perusal of the impugned order, we note that the ld CIT(A)

reproduced delay condonation petition in Page No.2 to 4 of the impugned

order, wherein, the assessee pleaded that he is unaware of the income

tax proceedings thereby, delay caused. The ld CIT(A) did not accept the

said explanation and rejected the same. Before us, ld AR submits that the

3 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.761 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.761 No.761 & 762/Chny/2026 No.761 762/Chny/2026 762/Chny/2026 762/Chny/2026

assessee did not receive any order from AO as he was non-resident and

now, he is ready to prosecute his case. Taking into consideration the

readiness of the assessee to prosecute its case before the first appellate

authority, we are of the opinion that the ld CIT(A) shall consider the delay

condonation petition and condone the delay. The ld CIT(A) by parting

opportunity shall decide the issues on merits and pass order in

accordance with law. 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.

Next, we shall take up ITA No.762/Chny/2026 for A.Y.2021-22.