“Section 253(5)”

Section References (mined)Section 253Section 253(5)443 judgments

VIJAY KOTHARI,INDORE vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

ITA 267/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

assessee is found to\nhave a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal as explained by Ld.\nAR. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an\nappeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause" for not\npresenting appeal ... nPage 7 of 25\nVijay Kothari\nITA No.267/Ind/2024\nΑ.Υ.:2015-16\nThus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5)\nand the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view,\ncondone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.\n4.\nThe background

JAGDISHCHANDRA SHANTILAL CHHATRALIA,GUJARAT vs. ASSESING OFICER, RAJKOT

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

ITA 623/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

nadvance by the AR the assesse. We found that there is a \"sufficient cause\" for\ndelay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers\nthe ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a \"sufficient\ncause\" for not presenting

VIREN VALLABHDAS DHAKAN,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

ITA 34/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115bSection 143(3)Section 234aSection 250Section 271ASection 271aSection 68

submission advance by the AR the assessee is found to have a "sufficient cause" for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a "sufficient cause" for not presenting

MVR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 1254/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Filed Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavits Explaining The Reasons Contending, Inter Alia, That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Period Of Limitation Due To Miscommunication & Misguidance With The Appointed Learned Counsel Regarding The Case Proceedings To The Assessee. Further, The Appellant, Relied Entirely On The Learned Counsel & The Company'S Internal Accounting Staff For Updates & Developments, Was Under The Bona Fide Impression That The Proceedings Were Being Diligently Pursued & Attended. In Addition To That, The Part Time Accountant, Mr. Pedditi Gopal Reddy Who Was Managing The Accounts Of The Appellant'S Company & Dealt With Appointed Counsel Unfortunately Fell Gravely Ill During The Covid-19 Pandemic Period & Passed Away Which Led To A Breakdown In The Flow Of Communication Between The Assessee & Their Legal Representative. The Assessee Only

For Appellant: Srinavya Adabala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR

Section 253(3)

आयकर अपील"य "याया"धकरण म", हैदराबाद ‘बी’ ब"च, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench

MVR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 1253/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Srinavya Adabala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR

Section 253(3)

आयकर अपील"य "याया"धकरण म", हैदराबाद ‘बी’ ब"च, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench

KUSUM GEORGE JACOB,BHOPAL vs. ITO - 2(1) BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, HOSHANGABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 657/IND/2025[2012 -2013]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026

For Appellant: KUSUM GEORGE JACOB

Section 147Section 250Section 253Section 253(5)

delay is neither\ndeliberate nor intentional but has occurred due to bona fide and\nunavoidable circumstances constituting \"sufficient cause\" within the\nmeaning of Section 253(5) of the Act.\n3. That, Late Shri George Jacob passed away on 27.12.2018. Thereafter, his\ndaughter, Ms. Monica Jacob, had been attending ... advanced age and\nvulnerability of the Appellant.\n11. That, it is a settled principle of law that the expression \"sufficient cause\"\nunder Section 253(5) of the Act is to be construed liberally so as to advance\nsubstantial justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that\nwhen substantial

SHAHANSHAH DAL MILL,BHOPAL vs. ITO-5(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 335/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 147

fact or material on record, the assessee is\nfound to have a \"sufficient cause\" for delay in filing present appeal. We find\nthat section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after\nexpiry of prescribed time, if there is a \"sufficient cause\" for not presenting

NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 233/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

substantial justice\nmust be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into\naccount the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of\nHon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit\nappeal and proceed with hearing.\n4. The background facts

MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL FOUNDATION,POLOGROUND, INDUSTRIAL STATE vs. EXEMPTION WARD INDORE, MAIN BUILDING, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/IND/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(5)Section 80G

fact or\nmaterial on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for\ndelay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act\nempowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if\nthere is a \"sufficient cause” for not presenting ... substantial justice must be preferred by adopting\na justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the\nprovision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we\ntake a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with\nhearing.\n4.\nWe have heard

MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL FOUNDATION,POLOGROUND, INDUSTRIAL STATE vs. EXEMPTION WARD INDORE, MAIN BUILDING, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/IND/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Section 12ASection 253(5)Section 80G

fact or\nmaterial on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for\ndelay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act\nempowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if\nthere is a "sufficient cause” for not presenting ... substantial justice must be preferred by adopting\na justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the\nprovision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we\ntake a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with\nhearing.\n4.\nWe have heard

KAPIL KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BAREILLY , BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH

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

ITA 335/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Kapil Khandelwal, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of 56, Moar Kothi, Gangapur, Bareilly Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly Pan: Aiypk4908M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Penalty Levied Upon The Assessee Under Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao On 17.03.2022 & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because Requisite Satisfaction For Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) If The Income Tax Act 1961 Was Not Recorded In The Regular Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2017 Passed A/S 100%, Therefore, Penalty Proceedings Got Wholly Vitiated & Consequently, The Id. "Cit(A)" Ought To Have Quashed The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022, Being Illegal, Bad-In-Law & Without Jurisdiction 2. Because The Show Cause Notice For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Did Not Specify Under Which Limb Penalty Was Sought To Be Imposed I.E.. Whether On Account Of Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Consequently, The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022 Passed By Faceless Assessing Officer Deserved To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

delayed by 183 days. Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the ld. AR) drew our attention to a condonation application under section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act by the assessee and an affidavit in which it was submitted that the order under section 250 dated

MUKESH VASANTKUMAR CHANDAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3003/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2014-2015

Section 143(3)Section 250

denial of the statutory right of appeal without\nadjudication on merits.\n10. It is well settled that the expression “sufficient cause”\nappearing in section 253(5) of the Act should receive a liberal\nconstruction so as to advance substantial justice. The Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition

REKHA KHANDELWAL,RAJGARH vs. ITO WARD RAJGARH, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 649/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Rekha Khandelwal, Income-Tax Officer, Ward No.2, Near Chote Ward Rajgarh Hanuman Mandir, बनाम/ Rajgarh Bus Stand Vs. S.O. Rajgarh, (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eljpk1548B Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(5)Section 68

fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting ... substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The background facts

AKHILESH PARMAR,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 636/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

fact or\nmaterial on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for\ndelay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act\nempowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if\nthere is a "sufficient cause” for not presenting ... substantial justice must be preferred by adopting\na justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the\nprovision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we\ntake a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with\nhearing

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 596/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

fact or material on record, the\nassessee is found to have a “sufficient cause" for delay in filing present\nappeals. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit\nan appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause" for\nnot presenting ... condonation of delay. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations of limitation.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "253(5) of the Income-tax Act", "250(6) of the Income-tax Act", "143(3)", "144", "147", "SARFAESI Act, 2002" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 595/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

fact or material on record, the\nassessee is found to have a “sufficient cause" for delay in filing present\nappeals. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit\nan appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause" for\nnot presenting ... medical issues and financial difficulties, as constituting a 'sufficient cause' for the delay in filing the appeals. Relying on judicial precedents and Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay to provide an opportunity for substantial justice.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "253(5)" ], "issues

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 594/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

fact or material on record, the\nassessee is found to have a “sufficient cause" for delay in filing present\nappeals. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit\nan appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause" for\nnot presenting ... Tribunal condoned the delay, admitted the appeals, and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961", "250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961", "143(3) r.w.s 254", "147 r.w.s. 144", "144 r.w.s

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 593/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

fact or material on record, the\nassessee is found to have a “sufficient cause" for delay in filing present\nappeals. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit\nan appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause" for\nnot presenting ... orders to be non-compliant with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.", "result": "Remanded", "sections": [ "Section 250(6)", "Section 253(5)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeals is condonable due to sufficient cause, and whether the orders of the CIT(A) dismissing the appeals

KAMLESH MOTWANI,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-2(1),BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 518/IND/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Section 144Section 253(5)

nmaterial on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for\ndelay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act\nempowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if\nthere is a "sufficient cause" for not presenting appeal within ... substantial justice must be preferred by adopting\na justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the\nprovision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we\ntake a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with\nhearing

RAJESH GOURISHANKAR,DEWAS vs. OFFICER, DEWAS

ITA 377/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Section 144Section 253(5)

fact or\nmaterial on record, the assessee is found to have a \"sufficient cause\" for\ndelay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act\nempowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if\nthere is a \"sufficient cause” for not presenting ... substantial justice must be preferred by adopting\na justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the\nprovision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we\ntake a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with\nhearing

Showing 1–20 of 443 · Page 1 of 23

...