← 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

Ashwani Dwivedi, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 498/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Raipur10 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.498/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ashwani Dwivedi M/S. Vandana Steel Traders, Junwani Road, Pushpak Nagar, Bhilai-490 020 (C.G.), Dist. Durg Pan: Aiapd9101B

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 44A

forms and thereafter, refused to opt for that. The appellant could not file his submissions before Ld. CIT(A). 5) That the delay in filing appeal is due to bonafide and genuine reasons.” 3 Ashwani Dwivedi Vs. ITO-1(3), Raipur (C.G.) It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel

Jiteshbhai Ramniklal Nagada, Jamnagar vs. ITO, Ward 2(6), Jamnagar

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 46/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.39/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda Vs. Ito, Wd- 2(6), Jamnagar Flat No. 603, K D Tower, Oswal Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Colony, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361004 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agtpn7366D (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 50CSection 56Section 68

6.Further, My son Mr. Jiteshbhai Ramniklal Nagda who was handling my matter was also not keeping good health which also leads to further delay in filing appeal. Copy of medical certificate is attached herewith. 7. I submit that due to above facts the delay of 430 days has caused

Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda, Jamnagar vs. ITO, Ward 2(6), Jamnagar

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 39/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.39/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda Vs. Ito, Wd- 2(6), Jamnagar Flat No. 603, K D Tower, Oswal Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Colony, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361004 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agtpn7366D (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 50CSection 56Section 68

6.Further, My son Mr. Jiteshbhai Ramniklal Nagda who was handling my matter was also not keeping good health which also leads to further delay in filing appeal. Copy of medical certificate is attached herewith. 7. I submit that due to above facts the delay of 430 days has caused

Fusion Granito Private Limited, Morbi vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 190/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.190/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No.555/P1/91, Tax-1, Vs. Nr. Khokhra Hanuman Temple, 2Nd Jetpar Road, Morbi-363641 Rajkot, Floor, “Aayakar Bhawan”, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcf 0696 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Praveen Verma, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot [In Short ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 27.03.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2023 Is Bad In Law. 2. The Hon’Ble Pr. Cit-1, Rajkot Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Completing The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Hurriedly In Short Span Of Time Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

appeal is not admitted, or dismissed on technical grounds, there is no merger. The CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeal only on limitation (delay in filing appeal), without adjudicating on merits. As per settled law, dismissal of appeal as time-barred is not a decision on merits, but only

The Muthalamada East Ksheera Vyavasaya Coop Society Ltd Nop4D, Muthalamada vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-2, Aaykar Bhavan

ITA 570/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the CIT(A). During the appellate proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that

For Appellant: Shri Rajendran, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. AR
Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 69A

dismissing the appeal preferred by the Assessee as being barred by limitation, the Assessee should have been granted an opportunity to explain the delay in filing appeal as computed by the Ld. CIT(A) and more so in view of the fact that in appeal memorandum in Form ... filed before the Ld. CIT(A) the Assessee had stated that there was no delay in filing appeal before 3 Assessment Year 2016-2017 the Ld. CIT(A). We further note that in Paragraph No. 14.1 of the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(A) is recorded as under: 14.1. Since

Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Kolkata vs. Equipment Barter Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 1560/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250Section 68

Saturday and Sunday and 17th Holiday) Total time taken for filing appeal = 305 days Less: Statutory time allowed for filing appeal = 60 days Delay in filing appeal = 245 days Delay in 245 days which may kindly be condoned. 1.2. Considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated

Family Physicians Association, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption), Ward, Bangalore

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

ITA 946/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Family Physicians Association, Vs. Ito (Exemptions), #202-3 Mahesh Clinic, Ward, R T Street, B V K Iyengar Road Cross, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 053, Karnataka. Pan :Aaatf 1083 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nagesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Nagesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 11(2)Section 143(1)Section 249(3)

Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that learned CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing appeal before him. He has reiterated the grounds of appeal which is attached with Form 36 and submitted that before making addition

Veer Singh Engineering Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal of

ITA 4731/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Veer Singh Engineering Private Limited Ito, Ward – 15(3)(2), Mumbai D-169, Midc, Ttc Industrial Estate, Vs Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400703. Mumbai – 400020. [Pan: Aabcv2750J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)

learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee fairly submits that there is delay of 451 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The delay in filing appeal was not intentional or deliberate. The impugned order was passed by ld. CIT(A) on 02.02.2024. However, the assessee was not served with ... affidavit in support thereof submits that the assessee has not explained the delay, yet if the bench is of the view that delay in filing appeal is condonable, instead of deciding the matter on merit, the matter may be restored back to the file of assessing officer to pass

Shri Bhagwan Rishabdev Charitable Trust, Delhi vs. ITO, Trust Ward(Exemptions)-2(1), Delhi

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 287/DEL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2025

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)

light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules. 4. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. The reasons for delay in filing appeal stated by the assessee seem to be reasonable. Accordingly, we condone the delay. 5. At the very outset, the ld. counsel

Shri Bhagwan Rishabdev Charitable Trust, Delhi vs. ITO, Trust Ward(Exemptions)-2(1), Delhi

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 286/DEL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2025

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)

light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules. 4. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. The reasons for delay in filing appeal stated by the assessee seem to be reasonable. Accordingly, we condone the delay. 5. At the very outset, the ld. counsel

Bhagvan Das, Firozabad vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(1), Firozabad

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

ITA 248/AGR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanbhagvan Das, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2)(1), 1, Daulatpur, Muihiddinpur, Firozabad. Firozabad – 283 204 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Eampd4308E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Prarthana Jalan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 03.09.2025 O R D E R 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 29.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Penalty Order With Delay Of 431 Days & Assessee Has Filed Affidavit Explaining The Reason For Delay In Filing Appeal Before The Itat & In The Affidavit, It Was Submitted That Assessee Was Not Aware Of The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (A) & It Was Submitted That The Email Id Registered On The Portal Was Not Of The Assessee. Therefore, Assessee Did Not Have Any Access To The Electronic

For Appellant: Ms. Prarthana Jalan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

assessee has filed this appeal against the penalty order with delay of 431 days and assessee has filed affidavit explaining the reason for delay in filing appeal before the ITAT and in the affidavit, it was submitted that assessee was not aware of the order passed

Dhara Developers, Shree Vishnudhara Homes vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(1), Income Tax Office, Vejalpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1833/AHD/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT. DR
Section 250Section 92C

Even otherwise, we have noted that even the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee’s appeal as non-maintainable on account of delay in filing appeal before him for which again no sufficient cause was adduced by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). Further, none appeared before

S.S. Rangasamy Raja, Rajapalayam vs. ITO, TDS Ward, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1744/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1743 & 1744/Chny/2025 िनधा>रण वष> /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 200A

opinion that the respondent beneficiary was not diligent in availing the remedy of appeal. The averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals do not show any acceptable cause much less sufficient cause to exercise courts' discretion in its favour.” 33. In the case of Esha ... considered view that the reasons given by the assessee in Column 14 in Form 35 for condoning the delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) is not ‘sufficient cause’. We also find that the assessee was non-serious and exhibited a lackadaisical approach. The case law relied

S. S. Rangasamy Raja, Rajapalayam vs. ITO, TDS Ward, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1743/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1743 & 1744/Chny/2025 िनधा>रण वष> /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 200A

opinion that the respondent beneficiary was not diligent in availing the remedy of appeal. The averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals do not show any acceptable cause much less sufficient cause to exercise courts' discretion in its favour.” 33. In the case of Esha ... considered view that the reasons given by the assessee in Column 14 in Form 35 for condoning the delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) is not ‘sufficient cause’. We also find that the assessee was non-serious and exhibited a lackadaisical approach. The case law relied

Arulmigu Devi Karumariamman Thirukoil, Chennai vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Chennai

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

ITA 1678/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1678/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Arulmigu Devi Karumariamman Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Thirukoil, Karumanriamman Thirukoil, Income Tax (Exemptions), Sannathi Street, Thiruverkadu 600 077, Chennai. Chennai. [Pan:Aadta3737H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. V. Krishnan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.04.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Raised 10 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer By 2

For Appellant: Shri N. V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

correction of data in the ITR filed and the same is pending for disposal. Thus, the ld. AR prayed that the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) may be condoned and directed the ld. CIT(A) adjudicate the issue on merits. 4. The ld. DR Shri

Govind Jee, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward -1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1040/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia,CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 69A

portal, setting out the reasons for delay and seeking condonation of delay. The ld. CIT(A) observed as under:- ‘’4. The issue of delay in filing appeal and decision thereon: (i) It is noted from the records that the appeal has been filed with a delay of approximately 9 months

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. Dharmendra Singh, Kolkata

Appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1433/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hon’Ble Itat Received From The Office Of The Pr. Cit, Central-2, Kolkata 26.06.2024 Filed 2Nd Appeal U/S 253 Before The Hon’Ble Itat, Kolkata

For Respondent: “Dates
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 68

expires on 06.05.2024, there caused a delay in filing of this appeal in 51 days. Therefore, it is requested to kindly condone the delay in filing appeal for the sake of substantial justice. Verification I, the undersigned, do hereby verify on solemn affirmation in Kolkata that the contents of this

The Puna Kumbharia Group Co-Op Fruits and Vege Grow Society Limited, Surat vs. ACIT Circle 3(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 355/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.354 To 355/Srt/2025 Ays: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) The Puna Kumbharia Groud Co-Op. Vs. Acit, Fruits & Vege Grow Society Circle – 3(2), Limited, Surat Kela Yard Dumbhai, Puna Kumbhariya Road, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaap1147N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By Ms Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 80P(2)(d)

that the Bench may decide the matter as it thinks fit. 6. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue of delay in filing appeal. In the affidavit, it is submitted that the appellant did not receive the order, which was sent in the e-mail ... knowledge of the appellant after receipt of the physical copy of the subsequent penalty proceedings. Though the appellant was not alert, the delay in filing appeal was not deliberate and intentional. Moreover, the assessee is not going to be benefitted by filling appeal belatedly. It is fairly settled that when

The Puna Kumbharia Group Co-Op Fruits and Vege Grow Society Limited, Surat vs. ACIT Circle 3(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.354 To 355/Srt/2025 Ays: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) The Puna Kumbharia Groud Co-Op. Vs. Acit, Fruits & Vege Grow Society Circle – 3(2), Limited, Surat Kela Yard Dumbhai, Puna Kumbhariya Road, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaap1147N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By Ms Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 80P(2)(d)

that the Bench may decide the matter as it thinks fit. 6. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue of delay in filing appeal. In the affidavit, it is submitted that the appellant did not receive the order, which was sent in the e-mail ... knowledge of the appellant after receipt of the physical copy of the subsequent penalty proceedings. Though the appellant was not alert, the delay in filing appeal was not deliberate and intentional. Moreover, the assessee is not going to be benefitted by filling appeal belatedly. It is fairly settled that when

Vijay Bhandari, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-7, Vapi

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

ITA 747/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.747/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Vijay Bhandari, Vs. Ito, Mataji Enterprises Shop No. Ug- National Faceless Assessment 17, Bhilad Plaza Shopping Centre Centre, Bhilad, Bhilad - 396105 Delhi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajtpb2990E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 44ASection 68

aforesaid reasons, appellant was constantly under mental and financial stress. The learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the delay in filing appeal was unintentional, bona fide and appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal in time. He requested that in the interest