Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN C.M.P.No.26055 of 2025 Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj 17, Krishna Iyer Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai - 600079.

Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC) C-Block, 4th Floor, S.P.M. Civic Centre, New Delhi-110 001.

2.The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax National Faceless Assessment Centre, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi-110 003.

3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Non-Corporate Circle 4(1), II Floor, BSNL Tower, No.16, Greams Road, Chennai - 600006.

4.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Range 8, II Floor, BSNL Tower, No.16, Greams Road, Chennai - 600006.

Respondents Prayer: Petition filed to condone the delay of 108 days in filing the above writ appeal against the order in WP.No.34788 of 2023 dated 27.02.2025.

For Petitioner:

Mr.Joseph Prabakar For Respondents:

Dr.B.Ramaswamy Senior Standing Counsel

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The ground for seeking condonation of delay is that, though the entire papers, including the order passed by the learned Single Judge, were handed over for filing appeal to the counsel, the counsel committed default and failed to file the appeal within the period of limitation and, therefore, the party should not suffer for the fault of the counsel.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that the averment made in the application is correct and he could not file the appeal within the time stipulated.

3. The delay appears to be because of the laxity on the part of the counsel and, therefore, the party cannot be blamed. This incidentally constitutes a cause sufficient to condone the delay. The delay is, accordingly, condoned. The application is allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is required to remain cautious and careful in future while providing legal services to a party and not to repeat the same.

List the appeal for admission.

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 28.11.2025 sasi