आयकर अपील(cid:10)य अ(cid:11)धकरण, ’डी’ (cid:15)यायपीठ, च(cid:15)े नई।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI (cid:1)ीमनुकु मारिग(cid:11)र, (cid:14)ाियकसद(cid:18) एवं

(cid:1)ीएस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखासद(cid:18)के सम(cid:29)

BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलस.ं/ITA No.3105/Chny/2025 tiनधा(cid:26)रणवष/(cid:26) Assessment Year: 2016-17 HITECH FLY ASH INDIA PVT LTD., v. ACIT, 2/101-5, Thiruchendur Road, Income Tax Office Muthiahpuram Tuticorn, Tirunelveli, Nellai City Centre Tuticorin-628005, Tiruchendup. Road Tamil Nadu Rahmath Nagar, Tirunelveli-627011 [PAN: AABCH 7093 J (अपीलाथ(cid:30)/Appellant) ((cid:31) यथ(cid:30)/Respondent)

अपीलाथ(cid:30) क! ओर स/े Appellant by : Mr. J Saravanan, Advocate (cid:31) यथ(cid:30) क! ओर से /Respondent by : Mr. ARV Srinivasan,CIT सुनवाई क! तार(cid:10)ख/Date of Hearing : 18.12.2025 घोषणा क! तार(cid:10)ख /Date of Pronouncement : 19.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17, vide orders dated 25.08.2025.

2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 1016 days in filing appeal by the assessee, for which the assessee has filed ground stating the reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted at ground 2as below:

“ Due to inadvertence and non-receipt of digital communication, the order was unnoticed as it landed in the spam folder of the authorised representative’s email account”

3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4. Before us, the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the assessee has given reasons for the delay but the same was not appreciated by the ld. CIT(A).Ld. AR submitted further that during the relevant period, the company’s director Mr. John Visagran was preoccupied with the prolonged and critical illness of both of his parents. Their unfortunate demise within the last 1.5 years caused significant emotional and administrative distress severally affecting his ability to focus on the companies affairs and legal obligations. Therefore, he pleaded that after condoning the delay, the assessee may be given chance to prosecute the case before the lower authority. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal.

5. We have carefully considered the material placed on record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of more than3 years. The Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay as the assessee failed to furnish any cogentexplanation for such inordinate delay. Before us also, the assessee has not brought on record any sufficient reason for condonation of delay or any evidence to substantiate that there existed a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time.

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 (SC), 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