← All Phrases

“delay in filing appeal”

AppealsSection 249Section 2491,894 judgments

The decision most relied on for delay in filing appeal is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on delay in filing appeal

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.
2 SCC 107 · 1987 · Supreme Court
451
citing judgments

Courts must adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, preferring to decide cases on their merits rather than allowing technicalities of limitation to scuttle justice. This principle applies to ensure the substantive rights of parties are not defeated by minor delays.

Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy
7 SCC 123 · 1998 · Supreme Court
368
citing judgments

The Supreme Court outlines the principles for condoning delay in filing appeals, stating that a litigant's lapse is not always a bar if the explanation is bona fide and not a dilatory strategy. Courts should show utmost consideration to suitors and prioritize substantial justice unless the delay is deliberately to gain time.

Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr
398 ITR 250 · 2017 · High Court
291
citing judgments

This case is cited as an authority supporting the condonation of delay in filing income tax appeals, particularly when an assessee presents a request for such condonation.

Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others
118 ITR 507 · 1979 · Supreme Court
268
citing judgments

For condoning delay, the term 'sufficient cause' must be interpreted liberally and purposively to advance justice. Delay not tainted by mala fides, gross negligence, or recklessness, and based on honestly obtained legal advice, constitutes sufficient cause.

Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT
280 ITR 357 · 2006 · High Court
182
citing judgments

The expression "sufficient cause" for condoning delay in filing appeals must receive a liberal and purposive construction. This approach aims to advance substantial justice, which is of paramount importance.

CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors.
153 ITR 596 · 1985 · High Court
171
citing judgments

Where a reasonable cause for delay in filing an appeal exists, the period of delay may not be a relevant factor for condonation. The court has condoned even substantial delays, such as nearly 21 years, based on the presence of a reasonable cause.

Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Ms Katiji and Others
167 ITR 5 · 1987 · Supreme Court
164
citing judgments

The principle of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay in filing appeals requires a liberal interpretation to ensure substantial justice, but delay will not be condoned if sufficient cause is not satisfactorily explained by the appellant.

Judgments citing delay in filing appeal

Sureshkumar Ramanlal Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Ward 19(3)(1)), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

ITA 3456/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271A

before Ld.CIT(A) against the penalty order with delay of 1 year 5 months and 2 days along with petition to condone the delay in filing appeal. However, Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. 3. The Learned Authorized Representative (Ld.AR

Amar Pal Singh, Noida Gautom Buddh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward 1(1) Noida, Noida Gbn U.P

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4680/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4680/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Amar Pal Singh, Income Tax Officer, E-205, Sector-2, Greater Noida, Vs. Ward 1(1), West, Near Trident Embassy, Noida, Bishrakh Jalalpur, Gbn., U.P., Noida. Pan No.Cofps6151B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144Section 250

under exceptional and beyond control circumstance, which under the situation, could not have been avoided 7. It is requested that the reason for delay in filing appeals as stated in their application for condonation of delay is the fact that the assesses is in service and not aware about

August Jewellery Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1457/BANG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Miraj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

with a delay of 167 days. During the appellate proceedings, the learned NFAC- CIT(A) rejected the Assessee's prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal, being not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee with regard to delay of 167 days in filing of the appeal ... submitted before the ld. CIT (A), NFAC. 9. The learned DR relied on the Order of the lower authorities and submitted that the delay in filing appeal should not be condoned. There were no sufficient cogent reasons were given before the ld. CIT(A) NFAC Sending the order is automatic

August Jewellery Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1420/BANG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Miraj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

with a delay of 167 days. During the appellate proceedings, the learned NFAC- CIT(A) rejected the Assessee's prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal, being not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee with regard to delay of 167 days in filing of the appeal ... submitted before the ld. CIT (A), NFAC. 9. The learned DR relied on the Order of the lower authorities and submitted that the delay in filing appeal should not be condoned. There were no sufficient cogent reasons were given before the ld. CIT(A) NFAC Sending the order is automatic

August Jewellery Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 1(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1419/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Miraj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

with a delay of 167 days. During the appellate proceedings, the learned NFAC- CIT(A) rejected the Assessee's prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal, being not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee with regard to delay of 167 days in filing of the appeal ... submitted before the ld. CIT (A), NFAC. 9. The learned DR relied on the Order of the lower authorities and submitted that the delay in filing appeal should not be condoned. There were no sufficient cogent reasons were given before the ld. CIT(A) NFAC Sending the order is automatic

Kireet Kedarnath Rai, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5222/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5

prevented by genuine reasons from filing the appeal in time before the Tribunal. The Ld. DR had not made any strong objection on delay in filing appeal. 4 KireetKedarnath Rai We accordingly condone the delay of 319 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The brief facts

Blue Ridge Unit B Tower 9 to 14, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2387/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2385, 2386 & 2387/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Blue Ridge Unit B Tower 9 Vs The Income Tax Officer, To 14 Co-Operative Housiong Ward-2(4), Pune. Society Ltd., Unit B Society Office, Rajiv Gandhi It Park, Phase I, Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057. Maharashtra. Pan: Aacab2693P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ms.Ayesha Ansari & Shri Sandesh Ps – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Through Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing 01/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 All Dated 26.08.2024 Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S

Section 147Section 250Section 7(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

which was interest received from Co-operative Bank. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed an appeal before ld.CIT(A). There was a delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). It was submitted before ld.CIT(A) that Assessee’s Tax Consultant was not available due to the ill health ... delay of 4 months 14 days in filing appeal before ld.CIT(A). It is also noted that there was a valid reason for delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. Assessee is not going to gain anything by delaying the filing

Blue Ridge Unit B Tower 9 to 14, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2386/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2385, 2386 & 2387/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Blue Ridge Unit B Tower 9 Vs The Income Tax Officer, To 14 Co-Operative Housiong Ward-2(4), Pune. Society Ltd., Unit B Society Office, Rajiv Gandhi It Park, Phase I, Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057. Maharashtra. Pan: Aacab2693P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ms.Ayesha Ansari & Shri Sandesh Ps – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Through Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing 01/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 All Dated 26.08.2024 Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S

Section 147Section 250Section 7(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

which was interest received from Co-operative Bank. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed an appeal before ld.CIT(A). There was a delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). It was submitted before ld.CIT(A) that Assessee’s Tax Consultant was not available due to the ill health ... delay of 4 months 14 days in filing appeal before ld.CIT(A). It is also noted that there was a valid reason for delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. Assessee is not going to gain anything by delaying the filing

Blue Ridge Unit B Tower 9 to 14, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2385/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
Section 147Section 250Section 7(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

which was interest received from Co-operative Bank. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed an appeal before ld.CIT(A). There was a delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). It was submitted before ld.CIT(A) that Assessee's Tax Consultant was not available due to the ill health ... Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), Assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal. It is noticed that there is a delay of filing appeal before this Tribunal. The Secretary of the Assessee Society has filed an Affidavit requesting for condonation of delay. The reason mentioned in the Affidavit

Sonmarg Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 3 1, Piramal Chamber Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5627/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 154(8)Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

dated 29/2/2024 under DIN ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1061752729(1) Order and and No. order dated 27/2/2024 under DIN and Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1061605078(1) after condoning delay for filing appeals. I say that the assessee was under the bonafide belief that in view of specific provision of section 143(1) and section ... violates assessee's remedy u/s 154(8) of the Act. I say in view of the above facts, though there is no delay in filing appeal against order u/s. 154 dated 12/7/2013, to be on safer side I say that there is a delay of 3375 days (excluding COVID period

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(3), Mumbai vs. Upl Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds

ITA 4437/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245Section 254(1)

appeal was received only on 08.07.2025. The delay is not intentional and no prejudice is likely to cause to the respondent assessee, if delay in filing appeal is allowed. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the Revenue made his submission as per the contents ... days only. The delay is not intentional and it was due to administrative reasons in getting approval of competent authority. Hence, the delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now, adverting to merits of the case. 5. Brief facts of the case are that assessee-company engaged in trading of fertilizers

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(3), Mumbai vs. Upl Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds

ITA 4436/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245Section 254(1)

appeal was received only on 08.07.2025. The delay is not intentional and no prejudice is likely to cause to the respondent assessee, if delay in filing appeal is allowed. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the Revenue made his submission as per the contents ... days only. The delay is not intentional and it was due to administrative reasons in getting approval of competent authority. Hence, the delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now, adverting to merits of the case. 5. Brief facts of the case are that assessee-company engaged in trading of fertilizers

A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

ITA 4445/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 200ASection 249(3)Section 250

above, it is evident that appellant has no sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. In absence of documentary evidence regarding delay in filing appeal during the relevant period, it cannot be presumed that there was reasonable and sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal ... condonation of delay. 4.2. Almost all the tax laws, whether they relate to direct taxes or Indirect taxes, contain provisions for condonation of delay in filing appeals, if the appellant (whether it is the taxpayer or the revenue) proves to the satisfaction of the appellate authority that he had sufficient

A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

ITA 4444/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 200ASection 249(3)Section 250

above, it is evident that appellant has no sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. In absence of documentary evidence regarding delay in filing appeal during the relevant period, it cannot be presumed that there was reasonable and sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal ... condonation of delay. 4.2. Almost all the tax laws, whether they relate to direct taxes or Indirect taxes, contain provisions for condonation of delay in filing appeals, if the appellant (whether it is the taxpayer or the revenue) proves to the satisfaction of the appellate authority that he had sufficient

A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

ITA 4443/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 200ASection 249(3)Section 250

above, it is evident that appellant has no sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. In absence of documentary evidence regarding delay in filing appeal during the relevant period, it cannot be presumed that there was reasonable and sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal ... condonation of delay. 4.2. Almost all the tax laws, whether they relate to direct taxes or Indirect taxes, contain provisions for condonation of delay in filing appeals, if the appellant (whether it is the taxpayer or the revenue) proves to the satisfaction of the appellate authority that he had sufficient

A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

ITA 4442/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 200ASection 249(3)Section 250

above, it is evident that appellant has no sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. In absence of documentary evidence regarding delay in filing appeal during the relevant period, it cannot be presumed that there was reasonable and sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal ... condonation of delay. 4.2. Almost all the tax laws, whether they relate to direct taxes or Indirect taxes, contain provisions for condonation of delay in filing appeals, if the appellant (whether it is the taxpayer or the revenue) proves to the satisfaction of the appellate authority that he had sufficient

A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

ITA 4441/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 200ASection 249(3)Section 250

above, it is evident that appellant has no sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. In absence of documentary evidence regarding delay in filing appeal during the relevant period, it cannot be presumed that there was reasonable and sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal ... condonation of delay. 4.2. Almost all the tax laws, whether they relate to direct taxes or Indirect taxes, contain provisions for condonation of delay in filing appeals, if the appellant (whether it is the taxpayer or the revenue) proves to the satisfaction of the appellate authority that he had sufficient

B.B. Nigade and Sons and Uma Constructions Jv, Kolhapur vs. TDS Ghaziabad, TDS CPC Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4435/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4435/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम B.B.Nigade & Sons & Uma Tds, Cpc Aaykar Bhawan, Constructions Jv, Vs. Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, H.No.157A Nirmitee Bungalow, U.P. Plot No.64, Vaibhav Housing Soc., Ujalaiwadi, Kolhapur, Maharashtra. Pan No.Aabfb4721A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 249(3)Section 250

condonation of delay. 4.2. Almost all the tax laws, whether they relate to direct taxes or Indirect taxes, contain provisions for condonation of delay in filing appeals, if the appellant (whether it is the taxpayer or the revenue) proves to the satisfaction of the appellate authority that he had sufficient

Shri Ganadhipati Gandharacharya Kuntiusagar Vidya Sodh Sonstha, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Exemption, Pune, Kolhapur

ITA 2026/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

health and unfortunately also owing to the health of our consultant Mr. Sharma ji. b. That is to say, the delay in filing appeal is not at all intentional and said delay has occurred solely because of the reasons stated above.” 2.1 The affidavit of the consultant of the assessee

Shri Ganadhipati Gandharacharya Kuntiusagar Vidya Sodh Sonstha, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Exemption, Pune, Kolhapur

ITA 2025/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

health and unfortunately also owing to the health of our consultant Mr. Sharma ji. b. That is to say, the delay in filing appeal is not at all intentional and said delay has occurred solely because of the reasons stated above.” 2.1 The affidavit of the consultant of the assessee