R. MURUGESAN,RAMANATHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), RAMANATHAPURAM
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that there were no justifiable reasons presented by the assessee for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that while courts can condone delay under justified grounds, it cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 2861 days, which is nearly eight years. The assessee's counsel could not provide satisfactory reasons for this significant delay. The respondent contested the admission of the appeal due to the lack of justified grounds.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal filed with an inordinate delay of 2861 days can be admitted without any justifiable reasons provided by the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Assessment Years: 2011-12 R.Murugesan, Income Tax Officer, No.175, Devipattinam Road, Ward-1(1), Kenikarai, Ramanathapuram. Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu-623 504. [PAN: ALLPM8791J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.Kumarasubramanian, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 14.02.2017, of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), Madurai for the assessment year 2011- 12. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time.
2.0 At the outset, it was noted that there was a delay of about 2861 i.e nearly eight years in this case. On being queried the Ld.Counsel for the assessee could not satisfactorily explain as to the justified reasons that have contributed to this huge delay. He merely submitted that the assessee was not in the know of the things and that the then available advocate of the assessee committed the default of not filing in time. It was stated that the said advocate has since demised. The Ld. DR contested the admission of the appeal now, submitting that there is no case for any allowance to be made as the assessee does not possess any justified reasons for delay.
3.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not give us any justifiable reasons whatsoever as to its failure in filing the impugned appeal before us with the delay of 2861 days. We have noted that the order of Ld.CIT(A) was passed on 14.02.2017 which was admittedly received in time by the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that there is no justifiable reasons with the assessee in filing of this appeal for the delay of 2861 days. It is trite law that Courts can condone delay if there exists justified grounds with the litigants. Delay cannot be condoned as a matter of right as it is not a luxury available with the litigant to be exercised at his discretion. In the Page - 2 - of 3 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 6th , Aug-2025 at Chennai.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
