SUBBU CHETTIYAR MANICKAM HARIGANESAN,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), SALEM

The below mentioned two appeals have been filed by the appellant assessee contesting the order of Ld. CIT(A) indicated Column-E, herein below:-

S. Appeal AYs Appellant CIT(A) Order Details Respondent No. Nos. A B C D E F DIN & Order No. ITBA / Subbu Chettiyar ITA NFAC / S / 250 / 2022-23 / No. Manickam 1046146183(1) dated Income Tax 1 2017-18 1978 / Chny Hariganesan, 30.09.2022 Officer, / 2025 No.34, 35-A, Peria Ward-1(2), Eluthukara Street, Salem, Salem. DIN DIN & Order No. ITBA Nadu-636 002. / NFAC / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 2 2018-19 [PAN: ABSPH5947E] 1979 / Chny 1066416639(1) dated / 2025 04.07.2024 2.0 Both the above appeals of the assessee are centering around the common issue of delay committed by the assessee while filing delayed appeal before this tribunal and hence for the purposes of convenience were heard together and are being adjudicated by this common order. The registry has identified that there is a delay of 958 days and 288 days in and 1979 / Chny / 2025 respectively.

3.0 The Ld.Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the affidavits filed justifying the impugned delay. Through its affidavits filed for respective years it was submitted that the assessee had not received the appellate orders and that learnt of the same only when recovery proceeding were initiated. It was argued by the assessee that the delay was not intentional or wanton. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee therefore had justified grounds and accordingly request was made to condone the delay.

4.0 The Ld.DR argued that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and that its conduct before the lower authorities has been far from satisfactory as far as compliance to the statutory notices / compliance are concerned. It was informed that the addition of Rs.86,28,500/- was made by the Ld.AO on account of non-compliance by the assessee to furnish any details. It was submitted that the assessee continued with its non- Page - 2 - of 5 cooperative and recalcitrant attitude before the Ld.CIT(A) who was compelled to confirm the addition. The Ld. DR argued that before this tribunal also the assessee is coming in a careless fashion by contributing the delay. The Ld.DR therefore vehemently argued that delay be not condoned and both the appeals be dismissed.

5.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. There is no denying the facts that the assessee’s conduct before the lower authorities has been far from satisfactory as far as compliance to statutory notices are concerned. It is trite principle of law that law aids vigilant litigants only. We are not therefore convinced with the justification for the delay put forth by the assessee in this case. We are of the considered view that no leniency deserves to be given to the assessee for contributing the delay in filing of this appeal. The delay is therefore not condoned and the appeals of the assessee in & 1979 / Chny / 2025 are therefore dismissed.

6.0 We have also examined the order of lower authorities and are of the considered view that the order passed by the Ld.AO dated 26.09.2019 which has been assailed by the assessee, has been passed after carefully considering the facts of the case and correct interpretation of law. We therefore totally agree and uphold the findings of the lower Page - 3 - of 5 authorities. In this regard we rely upon the order of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Global Vantedge Pvt Ltd dated 14.03.2013 considering 1829 / Del / 2010 and / Del / 2011 holding as under:- “….The learned counsel for the revenue contended that it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to have recorded its own findings rather than merely confirming the findings of the CIT (Appeals). However, the learned counsel for the respondent/ assessee drew our attention to the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons : (1966) 63 ITR 411 (SC), wherein, on a similar point having been raised, the Supreme Court observed as under: - “The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and normally it should record its conclusion on every disputed question raised before it, setting out its reasons in support of its conclusion. But, in failing to record reasons, when the Appellate Tribunal fully agrees with the view expressed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and has no other ground to record in support of its conclusion, it does not act illegally or irregularly, merely because it does not repeat the grounds of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on which the decision was given against the assessee or the department. The criticism made by the High Court that the Tribunal had “failed to perform its duty in merely affirming the conclusion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner” is apparently unmerited.” 7.0 In the result, the delay of 958 days and 288 days in & 1979 / Chny / 2025 is not condoned and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.

Page - 4 - of 5 & 1979/Chny/2025 Order pronounced on 14th , November-2025 at Chennai.