What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. The reasons provided were not substantiated, and the delay condonation petition was rejected.

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 536 days. The assessee claimed that no notice was issued by the CIT(A) before passing the order, and the appeal was filed only after receiving a demand notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned despite insufficient cause. The substantial law of limitation should not be frustrated by a liberal approach.

Selvarasu Veeramal, Cuddalore 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: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [‘ld.CIT(A)’ in short] for Assessment Year 2011-12.

We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor filed any adjournment application. The assessee called absent and we proceed to

2 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.787/Chny/2026 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.787/Chny/2026 No.787/Chny/2026 No.787/Chny/2026

hear the ld.DR to dispose the appeal considering the material available

on record.

We find this appeal was filed with a delay of 536 days. The

assessee filed delay condonation petition accompanied by notarised

affidavit dated 07.02.2026. On perusal of the reasons, we find that

assessee primarily contended that no notice was issued by the ld.CIT(A)

before passing the impugned order. The assessee filed this appeal only

when he received notice letter from Income-tax Department demanding to

pay outstanding tax.

The ld.DR submits that the assessee failed to give a sufficient cause

in explaining the inordinate delay of 536 days and prayed to reject the

same.

Having heard the ld.DR and on perusal of the delay in condonation

petition along with notarised affidavit, we find that the assessee failed to

explain the inordinate delay of 536 days and the reasons stated by the

assessee that no notice was received from the ld.CIT(A) are not

substantiated. Therefore, the delay condonation petition is rejected.

3 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.787/Chny/2026 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.787/Chny/2026 No.787/Chny/2026 No.787/Chny/2026

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

4 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.787/Chny/2026 I.T.A. I.T.A. No.787/Chny/2026 No.787/Chny/2026 No.787/Chny/2026

cause for not filing the appeal in time, we hold that the assessee’s

reasons for the inordinate delay cannot be interpreted liberally, we,

therefore, reject the condonation petition filed by the assessee for the

delay of 536 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 29th April, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated : 29.04.2026 JPV आदेशकी'ितिलिपअ.ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ&/Appellant, 2.'(थ&/ Respondent, 3. आयकरआयु//CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय'ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड$ फाईल/GF.

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.05.04 10:53:09 +05'30'

SELVARASU VEERAMAL,CUDDALORE vs. ITO, WARD-4,, CUDDALORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments