Tool Tech Enterprises Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
In this case, the assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a substantial delay of 963 days. The assessee sought condonation citing reasons such as:
- Receipt of CIT(A) order on a non-functional email ID,
- Closure of business, and
- Lack of proper legal advice initially.
However, the Tribunal found that:
- No supporting evidence was produced to substantiate claims like business closure or email issues.
- The explanation lacked credibility and failed to establish “sufficient cause”.
- Mere assertions without proof cannot justify inordinate delay.
The ITAT emphasized an important legal principle:
- Though courts adopt a liberal approach in condonation matters, it cannot override limitation law.
- “Substantial justice” cannot be used to bypass statutory timelines without bona fide reasons.
Accordingly, the Tribunal held:
- The assessee failed to demonstrate genuine and reasonable cause,
- The delay was not condonable, and
- Consequently, the appeal itself became non-maintainable.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.
2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 963 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay in support of notarized affidavit. In the petition, the assessee has submitted as under:
I, PALANISAMY KAMAL director of TOOL TECH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, No. 374, A P Tower, Dr. Rajendraprasad Road, 100 Feet Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641012, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
That I am competent to swear to this affidavit
1. That I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the appeal filed before the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
2. The I am a resident individual and is assessed to tax under the territorial jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 1, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. The petitioner is a business of distributor and supplier of imported CNC carbide cutting tools and other industrial products. The Tool Tech Business operation was closed during the F.Y. 2017-18.
3. That my case was selected for scrutiny assessment and completed vide order dated 31.12.2019 passed u/s. 144 of the Act by the Assessing Officer, wherein wrong addition of Rs. 15,36,000/- was made during the year.
4. That Against the assessment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – NFAC, Delhi, who vide order dated 30.01.2023 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
5. That the appellate order of the first Appellate authority was received on 14.02.2023.
6. That against the said order, an appeal before the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai is preferred.
7. That the appeal should have been filed within sixty days from end of the month of the date of service of order by virtue of sub-section (3) of section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
8. That therefore, the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 15.04.2023.
9. That however, appeal was filed on 18.12.2025 i.e., with a delay of 978 days beyond the statutory time limit allowed for filing the appeal.
10. That the said delay was neither intentional nor due to negligence but for the sufficient cause and reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, which is explained as below:
11. The petitioner, was received the ex-parte order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC) by wrong email ID ([email protected]) was not in operation and the domain of comwas locked due to business operation closed during the financial year 2017-18.
12. The petitioner was received the recovery proceeding notice from the Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer on 01.12.2025. After seeing the Arrears of demand notice then only the assessee came to know the appeal has been dismissed by NFAC, Delhi.
13. The petitioner has seeking the legal advice from Mr. Karthik Tax Practitioner at No.82, 4th floor, Aishwarya Apartment, Sai baba colony, Coimbatore – 641011 on 04.12.2025. The Tax practitioner has not given proper legal advice against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal.
14. He advised to petitioner to meet Mr. CA. V Padmanaban Council for filing further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.
15. On 11.12.2025, the petitioner met Shri V Padmanaban, Chartered Accountant for assistance in filing appeal before the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. On 18.12.2025, Shri V Padmanaban advised the petitioner to pay the appeal fee immediately and to hand over the papers for preparing and filing appeal.
16. Shri V Padmanaban prepared the appeal papers and sent to the petitioner on 18.12.2025. On 18.12.2025, the petitioner signed the appeal papers and handed over to Shri V Padmanaban for filing and the appeal was finally filed on 18.12.2025 with a total delay of 949 days.
17. The petitioner submits that it was due to the above mentioned reasons as to why the appeal before the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was filed with a delay of 978 days. Further, the petitioner wishes to submit that the delay is neither intentional nor negligence but for the sufficient cause as explained above.
18. The petitioner for these reasons and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of this petition prays that the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 978 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal filed on 18.12.2025.
19. That due to the above mentioned reasons as to why the appeal before the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was filed with a delay of 978 days.
I further affirm that the above stated facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
3. By referring to the reasons stated in the affidavit, the ld. AR prayed to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
