VIMALA NAGAPPAN,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NON-CORPORATE WARD 19(6), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

ITA 4306/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 October 2026AY 2018-194 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 1065 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the assessee's sole reason, the Covid-19 Pandemic, was not applicable to the assessment year and the period of delay. The Tribunal emphasized that while a liberal and justice-oriented approach is sometimes adopted, it should not be used to disregard the substantial law of limitation. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Guruswamy & ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah, the Tribunal stated that reasons must satisfy the authorities that the assessee was prevented by a sufficient cause. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, condoning the delay would amount to violating statutory provisions. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s rejection of the condonation petition. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee challenging the CIT(A)'s order on this point were dismissed, rendering the grounds on merits infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vimala Nagappan, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for the assessment year 2018-19. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a delay of approximately 3 years in filing. The assessee's sole reason for this delay was attributed to the Covid-19 Pandemic. The CIT(A) found this explanation insufficient, particularly as the intimation under Section 143(1) was issued on May 17, 2019, and the Covid-19 pandemic's impact on legal timelines generally began from 2020 onwards. Before the ITAT, the assessee offered no further explanation for the 1065-day delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee has provided sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 1065 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), thereby warranting condonation of delay under the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the delay was primarily due to the Covid-19 Pandemic, implying a liberal interpretation of the delay condonation provisions to ensure substantial justice. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through the CIT(A)'s order, contended that the Covid-19 pandemic was not applicable to the period in question (intimation dated 17.05.2019) and that the assessee failed to provide a day-to-day explanation for the delay. The revenue relied on the principle that delay condonation should not frustrate the law of limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 13.10.2026Pronounced: 27.10.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस.आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद� के सम# BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4306/Chny/2026 िनधा$रण वष$/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vimala Nagappan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 67/1, Sri Vavi Ramakrishna Gardens, Non-Corporate Ward -19(6), Ramakrishnapuram, Opp. Ramakrishna Chennai. Mill, Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 600 006. [PAN: AAHPV-6171-E] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate '(थ& की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 13.10.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 27.10.2026 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 13.07.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT-6, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2018-19.

At the outset, it is noted that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on non-satisfaction of reasons explained with reference to

:-2-: ITA No: 4306/Chny/2026

delay of nearly 3 years which is evident from para no. 3.1 of the

impugned order. According to the ld.CIT(A), the only reason cited in the

said delay is due to Covid-19 Pandemic, which is evident from para

no.3.2 of the impugned order. We find that there was no explanation by

the assessee on day-to-day basis delay before the ld.CIT(A) except

stating delay in filing of appeal due to Covid-19 Pandemic, which is

evident from para no.3.3 of the impugned order. Further, it is noted that

the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act was passed on 17.05.2019, wherein

as rightly held by the ld.CIT(A), Covid-19 Pandemic is not applicable as

it is applicable for subsequent year 2020 onwards, which is also evident

from para 3.3 of the impugned order. Before us, there was no explanation offered by the assessee for 1065 days delay and taking into

account the facts and circumstances narrated by the ld.CIT(A), we find

reasons stated by the assessee is not sufficient to condone the delay of

1065 days.

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

:-3-: ITA No: 4306/Chny/2026

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 before the ld.CIT(A), we hold that the

assessee’s reasons for the inordinate delay cannot be interpreted liberally, we, therefore, find no infirmity in rejecting the condonation

petition filed by the assessee for the delay of 1065 days in filing the

appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the grounds raised by the

:-4-: ITA No: 4306/Chny/2026

assessee with reference to challenging the action of the ld.CIT(A) in rejecting the delay condonation petition are dismissed and in view of the same, grounds raised on merits becomes infructuous requiring no adjudication.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 27th October, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 27.10.2026 JPV आदेश की 'ितिलिप अ-ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ&/Appellant, 2.'(थ&/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु./CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय 'ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड$ फाईल/GF

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.10.30 12:25:36 +05'30'

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →