Mayuri Electronics Private Limited Vs The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Mayuri Electronics Private Limited Represented by its Director, C. Anandh S/o Mr P.V. Chandrasekaran Aged 57 years, No 171/1 Co-operative Colony, Mohanur Road, Namakkal - 637001

¶11

..Petitioner(s)

¶12

Vs

¶13

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal D Bench, Rep. by its Registrar, A-3, 2nd Floor, Rajaji Bhawan, Besant Nagar, Chennai 90

¶14

The Commissioner of Income Tax National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Income Tax Department, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Lane, New Delhi - 110001

¶15

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 1, Erode, Flat No. R2, Nallappa Street, Periyar Nagar, Erode - 638001

¶16

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 1, Namakkal, 138/3, L.M.R Shopping Arcade, III Floor, Salem Road, Namakkal - 637001

¶17

..Respondent(s)

¶18

__________ Page1 of 5

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

WP No. 25493 of 2026

¶21

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of ceritorarified mandamus calling for the records in ITA. No 4051/Chny/2025 dated 18.03.2026 assed under section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the file of the 1st Respondent relating to the A.Y 2014-15 and quash the same and direct the 1st Respondent to condone the delay and to adjudicate the appeal filed by the Petitioner on merits

¶22

WP No. 25493 of 2026

¶23

For Petitioner(s):	Baskar G
	I.Dinesh
	Vishnu Sumanth
	P.M.Kathir
	A.Nikitha
	G.Akash
For Respondent(s):	Ms.Sheela, Sr.Standing counsel

¶24

Order

¶25

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.)

¶26

(1) Ms.Sheela, learned Senior Standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4.

¶27

(2) By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶28

(3) The writ petition is filed by the assessee, being aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] on the ground of inordinate delay of 851 days in stead of disposing the appeal on merits.

¶29

(4) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Appellate Authority was not communicated to the assessee directly, but

¶30

Page2 of 5

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

WP No. 25493 of 2026

¶33

to the E-mail address of the erstwhile Chartered Accountant, who failed to inform the petitioner about the dismissal of the appeal. Hence, there was a delay of 851 days in preferring the appeal before ITAT. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal, not being convinced with the reason for the delay, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the inordinate delay has not been substantiated.

¶34

(5) On perusal of the affidavit and the reasons stated, we find that the order of the Appellate Authority was sent to the E-mail of the Chartered Accountant and was not communicated to the assessee. It is a probable reason for the delay. However, having filed the appeal, it would have been appropriate for the ITAT to dispose of the appeal on merits in stead of, dismissing it on the ground of delay.

¶35

(6) Hence, we set aside the order of the Appellate Authority dated 18.03.2026, and remand the appeal in ITA.No.4051/Chny/2025, back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law, and to pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36