Payment of Additional 25% of Disputed Tax Amount to be Submitted before Appealing, Delay Excused: Madras HC [Read Order]
Madras HC allows an extraordinary matter to be appealed even after the outer condonation limit was breached.
![Payment of Additional 25% of Disputed Tax Amount to be Submitted before Appealing, Delay Excused: Madras HC [Read Order] Payment of Additional 25% of Disputed Tax Amount to be Submitted before Appealing, Delay Excused: Madras HC [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/03/09/2128522-disputed-tax-amount-submitted-before-appealing-madras-hc-taxscan.webp)
The Madras High Court excused the delay by the petitioner and directed them to pay an additional 25% of the disputed taxamount before they were heard in appeal.
Also Read:Income Tax Revision Order Unsustainable as PCIT Conducted No Independent Inquiry and AO Had Taken a Plausible View: ITAT [Read Order]
A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, they filed a reply to the show cause notice. Then, the assessment order was passed and uploaded on the website on 26.02.2025, where the petitioner did not avail the appellate remedy.
The counsel for the petitioner, during the proceedings, argued that additional conditions to deposit additional amount other than 10% mandatory pre-deposit amount can be imposed on the petitioner to give an opportunity to file an appeal against the assessment order.
The opposing counsel stuck to the statutory regime where the outer condonable limit of limitation period cannot be enlarged through Article 226 and prayed for non-interference.
Also Read:Prepayment Charges on Loan Terminated After Default Becomes Unsustainable: DRT Partly Allows ₹12.38 Lakh Kotak Mahindra Bank Claim [Read Order]
The High Court does find merit in the opposing counsel’s arguments, however, considering that the petitioner is a small timer which has not been the case in the relied judgments and the discretion of the Court in individual cases depending upon circumstances, the Court observed this matter to be of an extraordinary nature.
Therefore, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held that the petitioner was to be given one week’s time to prefer an appeal and pay a deposit of 25% of the disputed tax before the lapse of this week.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates


