The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1,Chennai-600 034 v. The Electronics Corporation Of Tamilnadu Limited
High Court
25 Sep 2025 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1,Chennai-600 034 v. The Electronics Corporation Of Tamilnadu Limited
Date of order
25 Sep 2025
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1,Chennai-600 034 v. The Electronics Corporation Of Tamilnadu Limited, the High Court (2025) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
T.C.A.No.186 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.09.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICEAND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
T.C.A.No.186 of 2025
The Principal Commissioner of Income tax-1,Chennai-600 034.
Appellant
Vs
The Electronics Corporation of Tamilnadu Limited,No.692, MHU Complex, 2[nd] Floor, Anna Salai,Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.
Respondent
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “C” Bench, dated 20.09.024 in ITA No.95/Chny/2024.
______________
Page 1 of 4
For Appellant:
Mr.T.Ravikumar
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Heard on admission.
2. The first question of law, as proposed by the Revenue, is with regard to the correctness of the view taken by the learned Tribunal in rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal.
3. The Tribunal has considered the cause shown by the Revenue and has arrived at a conclusion on fact that no sufficient cause was shown. Even after excluding the period from 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022 (due to Covid-19 pandemic), the appeal was barred by 503 days, as it was filed on 12.1.2024.
4. As no sufficient cause has been shown for the delay, the proposed first question of law does not survive. Consequently,
______________
Page 2 of 4
there is no need to consider the second proposed question of law.
5. Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 25.09.2025
Index: Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes/Nobbr
To:
1. The Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Benches, Chennai. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Benches, Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai. Chennai.
3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai-600 034.
4. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporation Circle 2(1), Chennai. Corporation Circle 2(1), Chennai.
______________
Page 3 of 4
______________
Page 4 of 4
T.C.A.No.186 of 2025
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE ANDG.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
bbr
T.C.A.No.186 of 2025
25.09.2025
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.