आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ (cid:16)ायपीठ, चे(cid:22)ई।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय (cid:27)ी मनु कु मार िग(cid:30)र, (cid:16)ाियक सद एवं माननीय अिमताभ शु’ा, लेखा सद के सम)

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI HON’BLE AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos.1743 & 1744/Chny/2025 िनधा>रण वष> /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 S.S. Rangasamy Raja, The Income Tax Officer, 124, Madasam Koil Street, Vs. TDS Ward, Rajapalaam – 626 117. Chennai.

[TAN: CHES21695C]

(अपीलाथ(cid:7)/Appellant) ((cid:8)(cid:9)यथ(cid:7)/Respondent)

अपीलाथI की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate KLथI की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 02.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member):

The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi, [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 14.05.2025 for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the order dated 16.11.2013 u/s.

200A/206CB of the Act for FYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 relevant to AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the both appeals in limine on account of enormous delay of 4120 & 4044 days (More than

12 years) in filing appeals.

3. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.

4. Before us, the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the appeal filed belatedly before the ld. CIT(A) may be condoned for the reasons stated in Column No.14 of Form No.35 read with Column No.2(c). He further contended that the ld. CIT(A) may be directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. The ld. DR relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A) and pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal.

5. We have gone through the appeal record and submissions of the parties. The reasons given in Column No.14 of Form No.35 are as under:

The order u/s 200A charging a levy of Rs.1,14,357/- was received on 16.11.2013. The appeal ought to have filed on 16.12.2014. The appeal is filed belatedly after a delay of 4120 days as we were under the mistaken impression as the levy was before the amendment of sec 200A(1) i.e.

before 01.06.2015 the levy be annulled.

6. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UOI Vs JAHANGIR BYRAMJI JEEJEEBHOY S.L.P.No.21096/2019 dated 03.04.2024 [2024] INSC 262 while disposing of the SLP held as under:

23. In such circumstances referred to above, we were left with no other option but to call upon the learned Attorney General to make submissions as to why we should look into only the merits of the matter and condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days 24. In the aforesaid circumstances, we made it very clear that we are not going to look into the merits of the matter as long as we are not convinced that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of such a long and inordinate delay.

25. It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the gross delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, then he cannot turn around and say that no prejudice would be caused to either side by the delay being condoned. This litigation between the parties started sometime in 1981. We are in 2024. Almost 43 years have elapsed. However, till date the respondent has not been able to reap the fruits of his decree. It would be a mockery of justice if we condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days and once again ask the respondent to undergo the rigmarole of the legal proceedings.

26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that