Case Law Details
Parthasarathy Ravikanth Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Unsigned Affidavit Cannot End Appeal: ITAT Says CIT(A) Must Allow Assessee to Cure Technical Defects
In a relief to an NRI assessee, the Chennai ITAT held that an appeal cannot be thrown out merely because the condonation petition was unsigned and unnotarized, without first giving the assessee an opportunity to rectify the defect. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine by refusing to condone a delay of 293 days in filing the appeal.
The assessee explained that he was an NRI suffering from severe health issues and remained unaware of the assessment order due to absence of any real-time alert regarding its passing. However, the CIT(A) rejected the condonation request on technical grounds since the petition was unsigned and unsupported by a notarized affidavit.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require the appellate authority to provide a reasonable opportunity to cure procedural defects before dismissing an appeal. Observing that no such opportunity was granted, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order and restored the matter back to his file with directions to permit the assessee to submit a proper condonation petition supported by affidavit and documentary evidence. The Tribunal further directed that if the delay is condoned, the appeal should thereafter be decided on merits in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
This appeal filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai-16 dated 24.02.2026 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2015-16.
2. At the outset, we note that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without going into the merits, as the delay of 293 days in filing the appeal was not condoned. The FAA at para 4 of his order had extracted the reasons stated by the assessee for belated filing of appeal before him. However, the FAA held that the reason is neither convincing nor supported by any evidence and dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had explained the reasons for the delay by stating that he is an NRI suffering from severe health issues and, since no real-time alert regarding the assessment order was received, he remained unaware of the passing of the assessment order. However, the CIT(A) observed that the petition for condonation of delay was unsigned and unnotarized and, on that ground, dismissed the appeal in limine. The Ld. AR contended that, before rejecting the condonation petition on such technical grounds, the assessee ought to have been afforded an opportunity to rectify the defect. The Ld. AR therefore prayed that, in the interest of justice, the assessee may be granted one more opportunity to file a proper delay condonation petition along with affidavit and necessary supporting documents before the CIT(A).
4. The Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine on the ground that the petition filed for condonation of delay of 293 days was unsigned and unnotarized. The contention of the assessee is that he is an NRI suffering from severe health issues and, in the absence of any real-time alert, was unaware of the assessment order passed by the AO. According to the assessee, before rejecting the condonation petition on technical grounds, an opportunity ought to have been granted to cure such defects by filing a proper affidavit along with supporting documents. The principles of natural justice require that a reasonable opportunity be afforded to the assessee to explain the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal and to rectify procedural defects, if any, in the condonation petition. In the present case, no such opportunity appears to have been provided by the CIT(A) before dismissing the appeal in limine. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file.
The assessee is directed to file a proper petition for condonation of delay supported by affidavit and relevant documentary evidences. Upon receipt of the same, the CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter adjudicate the condonation petition in accordance with law. In the event the CIT(A) is satisfied with the reasons furnished for the belated filing of the appeals, he shall proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st May,2026 at Chennai.
Author Bio
