“Section 249(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 249Section 249(3)640 judgments

SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT UPARWAH,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 236/RPR/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.236/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Uparwah, Rajnandgaon-491 445 (C.G.) Pan: Aafas6023D

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR

Section 249(3)Section 250(4)

appeal on the ground of limitation by not condoning the delay since sufficient cause was not established by the assessee in terms with Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’). The Ld. CIT-DR fairly conceded that the matter may be remanded ... cause and provide one final opportunity to the assessee to submit relevant documents/evidences to justify late filing of appeal in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act. 3. I find that on similar facts and circumstances, this Bench had provided one opportunity to the assessee to explain sufficiency

SHABD PRATAP SATSANG,SHABD PRATAP ASHRAM vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

suffer.” 4. The limitation period for filing appeal before ld CIT(A) u/s 249(2) of the Act is 30 days, however, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within

MAHESH PRAKASH BENDE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 27(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8028/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmahesh Prakash Ito Circle - 27(2), Bende 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, 302, 3Rd Floor, Prithvi Vs. It Office, Vashi Park, Sector-30, Vashi Railway Station Navi Mumbai-400 075 Building, Navi Mubmai – 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Alnpb2531M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250

delay of 127 days in filing the appeal. The learned CIT(A) first proceeded to examine the issue of condonation of delay under section 249(3) of the Act. The assessee explained the delay in filing the appeal by stating, inter alia, that:  The assessee is not well educated ... declined to condone the delay. The CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to establish “sufficient cause” for delay within the meaning of section 249(3) and the reasons furnished were not supported by any cogent and verifiable evidence. The CIT(A) also held that the ignorance

TIRATH SINGH PRITHPAL SINGH, BASTAR,BASTAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD KANKER, KANKER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 184/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.184/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Tirath Singh Prithpal Singh Raipur Road, Kondagaon, Bastar-494 226 Pan: Aabft4954F

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 249(3)Section 250(4)

authority on time. After verifying all these areas, only one can understand whether such ground of delay would be condoned in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that if one final opportunity is provided ... delay and after going through those evidences, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall specifically decide whether such delay can be condoned as per Section 249(3) of the Act and then decide on merits of the case in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. Further

SEVABHAVI BRAMNAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT RAVTALE CHIPLU,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2784/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2784/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sevabhavi Bramnan Nagari Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ward-1, Ratnagiri Ravtale Chiplu, Burumtali Chiplun, Ratnagiri – 415605, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra Pan : Aadas7630J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(2)(c)Section 249(3)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2784/PUN/2025

CHHAGANLAL BHIMABHAI DANGODARA,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed…”

ITA 2548/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Dr. Kumarbhai R Pandya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(108)Section 250

days in filing of this appeal. The inordinate delay in the present case, if condoned, would make the term ‘’Sufficient cause” in section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hollow and meaningless. 20. In light of the facts of the case, provisions of the Income ... inordinate delay of 1,396 days i.e almost four years in filing this appeal. Being bereft of any sufficient cause as envisaged in section 249(3) of the Act, the appeal cannot be admitted. Since the appeal is not maintainable, there is no need to adjudicate on the merits therein

CHHAGANLAL BHIMABHAI DANGODARA,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed…”

ITA 2547/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Dr. Kumarbhai R Pandya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(108)Section 250

AGRAWAL SPONGE LTD. , RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 136/RPR/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.136/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Agrawal Sponge Limited 91-92, Siltara Growth Centre, Phase-Ii, Birgaon, Raipur-493 221 (C.G.) Pan: Aaeca3183F

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Chawda, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 249(3)Section 250(4)

days by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for the reason that the assessee was not able to explain sufficient cause in terms with Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’) before the said authority. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel ... opportunity to furnish specific reasons for establishing sufficient cause regarding condonation of such delay before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act, hence, prayer was made for such final opportunity. 4. In this regard, the Ld. Sr. DR though principally relied

BABASAHEB BHAGAWAN ATKIRE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1369/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 250

with due care.\nIn view of the above detailed discussion, it is held that the appellant has\nno\"sufficient cause" in terms of section 249(3) of the Act, for not\npresenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well-settled law\nthat an appellant is not entitled

BABASAHEB BHAGAWAN ATKIRE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1368/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Babasaheb Bhagawan Atkire, Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, S.No.50/3, Flat No.9, Floor No.1, Pune Kure Plazapune, Opp. Konark Pooram Main Gate, Kondhwa Khurd, Pune 411048, Maharashtra Pan : Afepa8628K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Shri Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 143(3)Section 250

with due care. In view of the above detailed discussion, it is held that the appellant has no"sufficient cause" in terms of section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well-settled law that an appellant is not entitled

SHRI OM PARKASH BAJAJ,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), FEROZEPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 216/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None (Adjournment application)

Section 144Section 148Section 156Section 249(3)Section 250

have heard the Ld. DR and considered the materials on record. We are of the opinion that before rejection of the appeal under section 249(3) of the Act, the Ld. 4 I.T.A. No. 216/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 first appellate authority has not allowed any opportunity to the assessee

NARENDRA PAL SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2583/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2583/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Narendra Pal Singh, Income Tax Officer, 3A, Divine Heritage Society, Vs. Cgo Complex, Kamla Nehru Gyan Khand Ii, Nagar Indirapuram,Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Hapur Road,Ghaziabad, 201010. Uttar Pradesh 201005. Pan No.Avqpp2801H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 249(3)Section 250

ITA No.2583/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

KAMLESH SHARMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 70/RPR/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 70/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2020-21) Kamlesh Sharma, House No.109, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Harihant Nagar, Sarona, Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Ring Road No.1, Raipur-492001, Cg Building, Civil Lines, Raipur-492001 Pan: Bppps4514C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2020-21 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.12.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 57Section 69

case and the submissions made by the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. As per the provisions of section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, an appeal filed beyond the prescribed period can be admitted only if the appellant is able to establish that ... present case, the 4 Kamlesh Sharma vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1) appellant has not discharged the onus cast upon him under section 249(3) of the Act to establish sufficient cause for the delay of 126 days. Accordingly, in absence of any convincing or acceptable justification supported by evidence

VINOD KUMAR KAILASHCHANDRA VERMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 69/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 69/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vinod Kumar Khailashchandra Verma, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), House No.496/9, Avanti Vihar, Sector-2, Central Revenue Building, Telibandha, Raipur-492001 (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G. 492001 Pan: Aanpv5964B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed.) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: None. (Adjournment petition filed.)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69A

extraordinary delay of 1051 days against the assessment order dated 29.03.2022. The appellant has not submitted any request for condonation of delay under section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In light of the material available on record, the following points are pertinent for not considering the appeal ... filing the appeal. No evidence or material has been placed on record to substantiate circumstances beyond their control.  Non-Filing of Condonation Request: Section 249(3) permits condonation of delay only upon a satisfactory showing of "sufficient cause". In this case, as the appellant has not made any condonation request

S 778 R PATTANAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY ,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD 2, NAMAKKAL, NAMAKKAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3374/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. V. Sreeraman, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 143(3)Section 249(3)Section 68

whether the delay of 23 months and 15 days in presenting the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) merits condonation in terms of section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 8. At the outset, it is a settled principle of law that the expression “sufficient cause” occurring ... section 249(3) of the Act should receive a liberal and justice-oriented interpretation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471) has emphatically held that a liberal approach must be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay and that substantial justice

RAMESHWAR NISHAD, BHILAI,BHILAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 45/RPR/2026[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Raipur03 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.44 & 45/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rameshwar Nishad Sahu Auto, Krishna Talkies Road, Azad Market, Risali, Bhilai (C.G.)-490 006 Pan: Amhpn5290N

For Appellant: Shri Yash Dhariwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 249(3)Section 250(4)

delay and that there is no explanation furnished by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority for such condonation in terms with Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). That so far the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.44/RPR/2026 is concerned, there ... Authority, due to which, such appeal had been dismissed, in such scenario, the assessee needs to explain the said delay in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act before the First Appellate Authority as per 3 Rameshwar Nishad Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Bhilai ITA Nos. 44 & 45/RPR/2026 principles

ANIL KUMAR SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 586/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Ito, Ward –1(3)(1) Pushpanjali Dwarika Near Bhagwan Nagar N.H.-2, Mathura Pan : Axjps7413B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order

Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

filing appeal. The limitation period for filing appeal before ld CIT(A) u/s 249(2) of the Act is 30 days, however, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within

VIMALA JAYANTILAL PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7063/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

days was on account of the death of a family member of the C.A\nwould constitute “sufficient cause” in terms of provisions of section 249(3) of the\nAct. The delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but was due to\ncircumstances beyond control of the appellant. Therefore, in the interest ... merits.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961", "Section 143(3)", "Section 32", "Section 68", "Section 69C", "Section 249(3)" ], "issues": "Whether the death of the assessee's CA constitutes sufficient cause for condoning an 8-day delay in filing an appeal before

KAMALJEET KAUR GILL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-3(1) ESTW. ITO WARD-3(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 79/RPR/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.79/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Kamaljeet Kaur Gill Shukla Colony, Rajatalab, Shukla Ward, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Ahkpg7831Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 249(3)Section 250(4)

adjudication on merits.” It is therefore, clear that the First Appellate Authority did not find merit regarding “sufficient cause” in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act as assailed by the assessee, hence, dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudication on merits. Furthermore, as examined even the substantive ... file directing the assessee to explain the “sufficient cause” for such delay before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act. Once the said authority is satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, then it shall proceed to decide the issue on merits

JINDAL COMMODITIES,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 43(2),, KOLKATA

In the result, the present appeal is dismissed

ITA 2905/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 5

been able to show any "sufficient cause" for not presenting the appeal within the said prescribed period, within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act, read with section 5 of The Limitation Act. Accordingly, the appeal is not admitted for adjudication on merits. 7. In the result

Showing 1–20 of 640 · Page 1 of 32

...