IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.11.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.Nos.41996 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos. 47035 & 47036 of 2025 Syed Ibrahim Jafar Sadiq ...Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Income Tax Department No.63 Race Course Road, Coimbatore 641 018

2.The Branch Manager DBS Bank No.23, Sree Krishna Towers Bye Pass Road, Udumalpet PIN 642 126

3. The Branch Manager Bank of India No.61, Nagarajan Street, Udumalpet PIN 642126 ...Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records and quash the order in original passed by the 1st respondent bearing DIN ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078184846(1) dated 04.07.2025 and forbear the 1st respondent from taking any recovery measures pursuant to the order in original passed by the 1st respondent bearing DIN ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-

26/1078184846(1) dated 04.07.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balaji For Respondents : Mrs.M.Sheela for R1 Senior Standing Counsel Mr.H.Siddharath Junior Standing Counsel

ORDER

Mrs.M.Sheela, learned Senior Standing Counsel takes notice for the 1st Respondent.

2. This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel for the 1st Respondent.

3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the CIT Appeals in this writ petition. The petitioner has challenged the impugned communication dated 04.07.2025 passed by the first respondent. The petitioner has however not made the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals as a party to the proceedings.

4. By the impugned order, the Appellate Commissioner has dismissed the application filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order dated 08.02.2024 passed for the assessment year 2018-2019 under Section 147 r/w Section 144 and Section 144-B of Income Tax Act

1961.

5. The application that was filed on 06.05.2025 was beyond the period of limitation under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act. Hence, the application filed for condonation of the delay has been rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal vide impugned order dated 04.07.2025.

6. Operative portion of the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 reads as under :

“2.9. In light of the above legal position and judicial pronouncements, I have considered the reasons for delay in filing the present appeal. It is a settled position that in case of delay the assessee has to make out a case of having sufficient cause, and producing evidences towards the same strengthen the plea of the assessee. However, in this case, it is observed that the appellant has merely stated professional constraints without providing any specific details, documentary evidence, or justification sufficient to substantiate the claim of genuine hardship or circumstances beyond his control that caused the substantial delay of 423 days. The principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mst. Katiji's case emphasizes liberal consideration for condonation of delay. However, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The condonation of delay cannot be granted merely on general statements without credible explanations. The Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly laid down the principle that the duty of diligence has to be strictly adhered to by the appellant. Mere negligence, carelessness or inaction does not constitute a 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay. There can be no sympathy for laxity or lack of due care. The sanctity of the limitation period has to be maintained and strictly enforced and cannot be ignored merely on grounds of enquiry or sympathy.

3. Considering the absence of specific, reasonable, and adequate and cause provided by the appellant, the condonation petition does not merit acceptance. The appellant has failed to demonstrate a sufficie