← 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

Satyajit Munda, Mayurbhanj vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Baripada

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

ITA 816/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasatyajit Munda, I.T.O., At-Kukudakhumpi, Bainganbadia, Ward-1, Vs. Kuliana, Mayurbhanj-757105 (Odisha) Baripada. Pan No. Amrpm 0321 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for readjudication on merit after condoning the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 4. In reply, ld Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). However

Elgar Pratisthan, Chandrapur vs. ITO Ward-3 Exemption, Nagpur

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 263/NAG/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Elgar Pratisthan Ito, Ward–3 (Exemption), Nagpur Pragati Nagar, Rayatwari Ward, Vs Bsnl Rttc Building, Nagpur, Tadala Road, Chandrapur, Maharashtra – 440006. Maharashtra–442402. [Pan: Aaate2218A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 12ASection 254(1)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Tribunal. The assessee has filed affidavit of one of the trustee namely Minal Vijay Siddhawar. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee is living in remote area of District Gadchirauli and could not realize about rejection of their ... their appeal immediately. Thus, considering the prayer of ld. AR of the assessee that we find that there is no Elgar Pratisthan intentional delay in filing appeal. Rather, the assessee is interested in pursuing through case on merit. Hence, the delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now, adverting to merits

Paranjyothi Thota, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2079/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

For Appellant: Advocate C. AnuragFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

before the Ld. CIT (A). However, only when the Bench pointed out the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) on the issue of delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A), the learned Counsel for the assessee stated the facts narrated before the Ld. CIT (A). We have gone through ... matter; acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Following the spirit of advancing substantial justice, Act has included discretionary powers for condoning delay in filing appeals. Section 249(3)of the Act, that allows the FAA to admit belated appeals, reads as under : "(3) The Commissioner (Appeals) may admit

Paranjyothi Thota, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2050/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

For Appellant: Advocate C. AnuragFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

before the Ld. CIT (A). However, only when the Bench pointed out the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) on the issue of delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A), the learned Counsel for the assessee stated the facts narrated before the Ld. CIT (A). We have gone through ... matter; acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Following the spirit of advancing substantial justice, Act has included discretionary powers for condoning delay in filing appeals. Section 249(3)of the Act, that allows the FAA to admit belated appeals, reads as under : "(3) The Commissioner (Appeals) may admit

Sree Jeshta Laxmi Welfare and Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bangalore

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

ITA 1803/BANG/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2026-27 M/S. Sree Jeshta Laxmi Welfare & Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Charitable Trust, Unity Building Annexe, No.50, Karnataka Layout, Mission Road, 2Nd Cross, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 079. Pan : Aakts 9479 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Rajeev Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 12A

file the appeal before ITAT and when advised correctly, immediately responding by filing the appeal clearly shows that there is sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal. The delay is unintentional and Bonafide. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. 6. Brief facts

Shree Shirdi Saibaba Seva Charatable Trust, Keonjhar vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Exemption Cuttack

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 770/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiashree Shirdi Saibaba Seva Charitable I.T.O., Trust, Cuttack. Vs. Mining Road, Keonjhar Garh, Keonjhar-758001 (Odisha) Pan No. Aakts 5002 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 144

Sr.DR for the revenue submitted that the appeal before the ld. Addl./JCIT(A) was dismissed on account of six years delay in filing appeal. It was the submission that the order of the ld. Addl./JCIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee on account of delay is liable

Fattesing Punaji Dhabre, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner Income Tax – 2, Nagpur

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 368/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

ridden with multiple chronic disabling health issues and also suffering from dementia. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that delay in filing appeal is absolutely neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee is not going to be benefitted by filing appeal belatedly. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that ... both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. Firstly, we are considering the plea of condonation of delay in filing appeal by assessee. We find that before Tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee has vehemently argued that order under section 263 was passed during

No.K.779.Guruvareddiyur Primary Agri Co-Op Credit Society, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Erode, Erode

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

ITA 2779/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2778 & 2779/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 K 779 Guruvareddiyur Primary Agri Co- Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Op. Credit Society, Chennampatti Main Ward 2(1), Road, Guruvareddiyur Post, Bhavani Erode. Taluk, Erode 638 504. [Pan:Aaaag1657Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Ca (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 11.08.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Towards Quantum Addition As Well As Levy Of Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 270A

penalty appeal passed under section 270A of the Act of AY 2020-21, we note that the ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing appeal against levy of penalty under 3 I.T.A. Nos.2778 & 2779/Chny/25 section 270A of the Act, but, however, the delay in filing the appeal against quantum

No.K.779.Guruvareddiyur Primary Agri Co-Op Credit Society, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Erode, Erode

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

ITA 2778/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2778 & 2779/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 K 779 Guruvareddiyur Primary Agri Co- Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Op. Credit Society, Chennampatti Main Ward 2(1), Road, Guruvareddiyur Post, Bhavani Erode. Taluk, Erode 638 504. [Pan:Aaaag1657Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Ca (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 11.08.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Towards Quantum Addition As Well As Levy Of Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 270A

penalty appeal passed under section 270A of the Act of AY 2020-21, we note that the ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing appeal against levy of penalty under 3 I.T.A. Nos.2778 & 2779/Chny/25 section 270A of the Act, but, however, the delay in filing the appeal against quantum

Lalji Wakre, Bilaspur vs. ITO-2(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 768/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.768/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Lalji Wakre Vill: Salhekota, The. Marwahi, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 118 Pan: Acipw5906F

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA &For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the same submissions and tried to suffice reasons for such huge inordinate delay in filing appeal before the First Appellate Authority without any supporting documents/evidences. However, the reasons submitted does not justify such huge delay and the very conduct ... noted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of huge inordinate delay in filing appeal of the assessee before the said authority. There is delay of 9 years and 233 days for filing the appeal by the assessee before

Petanity and Animal Rehabilitators Foundation, Chandrapur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 165/NAG/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Petanity & Animal Rehabilitators Cit(Exemption), Pune Foundation Chandrapur Vs Room No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Ito, Pmt Sagar Enterprises, Madhuban Plaza, Building, Shankar Seth Road, Near Mount Convent, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411037. Chandrapur, Maharashtra – 442401. [Pan: Aagap6876N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhavesh Moriyani, Advocate Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 12ASection 254(1)

filing appeal. Moreover, there is delay of 78 days in filing appeal. Considering the explanation furnished by ld. AR of the assessee, delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now adverting to the merits of the case. 5. We find that application of assessee for registration under section 12AB was rejected

Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaik, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 7339/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Akshay JainFor Respondent: Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR
Section 245

delay of around 176 days as it appears to be only due to the lax approach of the appellant. The reason for delay in filing appeal lax approach of the appellant. The reason for delay in filing appeal lax approach of the appellant. The reason for delay in filing appeal

Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 7338/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Akshay JainFor Respondent: Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR
Section 245

delay of around 176 days as it appears to be only due to the lax approach of the appellant. The reason for delay in filing appeal lax approach of the appellant. The reason for delay in filing appeal lax approach of the appellant. The reason for delay in filing appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai vs. Veda Real Estate Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, the present appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7966/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal. In our view, no benefit would have accrued to the Appellant by delaying filing of appeal. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Therefore, delay of 150 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to examine the grounds raised in the present appeal. 3. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record. 4. It emerges that the asse

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj JainFor Respondent: Shri Kavita Kaushik
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

explained that the delay in filing the appeal is purely inadvertent and occurred Assessment Year 2018-2019 due to bonafide administrative reasons. The delay in filing appeal was not deliberate and for reasons beyond control. We have no reasons to doubt the aforesaid explanation offered by the Revenue

Siddhi Diamond, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(8) Old Ward-1(5), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 2167/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: This Tribunal Which Is Explained By Way Of Notarized Affidavit. There Was A Misconception Of Filing Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Against The Giving Effect Order, Rather Against The Cit(A)’S Order Before This Tribunal Which Has Resulted In Delay Of 48 Days In Filing The Above Appeal. Considering The Explanation Offered, The Delay Of 48 Days In Flinging The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned.

Section 143(3)

registered email. On verification from the portal, assessee came to know about the reassessment order which has resulted in 28 days delay in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 4. We are satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee thereby 28 days delay in filing appeal before

The Sonmrug Co-Operative Hsg Society Limited, Pedder Road vs. CIT(Appeal), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine

ITA 2797/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarwith With With Sonmrug Co-Operative Vs. Cit(A) Housing Society Ltd Kautilya Bhavan 62Cc Sunita Apartment Mumbai, Pedder Road, Behind Mount Mumbai - 400012 Unique, Mumbai - 400036 Pan/Gir No. Aabat0916G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pawan Choudhary Revenue By Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 2794/Mum/2025, A.Y 2012-13 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 80P

case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has completely ignored on the merit of the case, and only delt with delay in filing appeal. 2. The Appellant is a registered Co-operative Housing Society registered under Maharashtra State Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 registration No.BOM/HSG/3256 of 1971 dated ... assessee and nobody will Intentionally Act against his own interest. In view of above, I have to request you to kindly condone the delay in filing appeal and oblige.” 6 Sonmrug Co-operative Housing Society Ltd 2.2 As per Form no. 35, the appeal is delayed for 3615 days

The Sonmrug Co-Operative Hsg Society Limited, Pedder Road vs. CIT(Appeal), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine

ITA 2796/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarwith With With Sonmrug Co-Operative Vs. Cit(A) Housing Society Ltd Kautilya Bhavan 62Cc Sunita Apartment Mumbai, Pedder Road, Behind Mount Mumbai - 400012 Unique, Mumbai - 400036 Pan/Gir No. Aabat0916G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pawan Choudhary Revenue By Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 2794/Mum/2025, A.Y 2012-13 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 80P

case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has completely ignored on the merit of the case, and only delt with delay in filing appeal. 2. The Appellant is a registered Co-operative Housing Society registered under Maharashtra State Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 registration No.BOM/HSG/3256 of 1971 dated ... assessee and nobody will Intentionally Act against his own interest. In view of above, I have to request you to kindly condone the delay in filing appeal and oblige.” 6 Sonmrug Co-operative Housing Society Ltd 2.2 As per Form no. 35, the appeal is delayed for 3615 days

Sonmrug Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Pedder Road vs. CIT(Appeal), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine

ITA 2795/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarwith With With Sonmrug Co-Operative Vs. Cit(A) Housing Society Ltd Kautilya Bhavan 62Cc Sunita Apartment Mumbai, Pedder Road, Behind Mount Mumbai - 400012 Unique, Mumbai - 400036 Pan/Gir No. Aabat0916G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pawan Choudhary Revenue By Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 2794/Mum/2025, A.Y 2012-13 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 80P

case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has completely ignored on the merit of the case, and only delt with delay in filing appeal. 2. The Appellant is a registered Co-operative Housing Society registered under Maharashtra State Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 registration No.BOM/HSG/3256 of 1971 dated ... assessee and nobody will Intentionally Act against his own interest. In view of above, I have to request you to kindly condone the delay in filing appeal and oblige.” 6 Sonmrug Co-operative Housing Society Ltd 2.2 As per Form no. 35, the appeal is delayed for 3615 days

Sonmrug Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Pedder Road vs. CIT(Appeal), Mumbai

ITA 2794/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 80P

case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has completely ignored on the merit of the case, and only delt with delay in filing appeal. 2. The Appellant is a registered Co-operative Housing Society registered under Maharashtra State Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 registration No.BOM/HSG/3256 of 1971 dated ... assessee and nobody will Intentionally Act against his own interest. In view of above, I have to request you to kindly condone the delay in filing appeal and oblige." 6 ITA No.2794/Mum/2025 Sonmrug Co-operative Housing Society Ltd 2.2 As per Form no. 35, the appeal is delayed

Pravakar Patra, Bhadrak vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Bhadrak

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

ITA 82/CTK/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

these appeals also, there are also delay in filing of appeals before the Tribunal. Since we have condoned the delay in filing appeal in ITA No. 78/Ctk/2026 before the Tribunal and restored the issues back to the file of Assessing Officer for readjudication on merit, therefore, keeping in view