← 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

Sellappa Gounder Kuppusamy, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 793/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.793/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sellappa Gounder Kuppusamy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 125, Sulliporukkupalaiyam, Ward 2(5), Kilangundal, Mulanur, Tiruppur. Tiruppur 638 106. [Pan:Bbdpk7658F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Muthu Kumar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Raised 2 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Rejecting The Condonation Petition & Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer When The Assessee Has Opted For 2

For Appellant: Shri K. Muthu Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

delay and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. The ld. AR Shri K. Muthu Kumar, C.A., with regard to the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A), drew our attention to complete medical records of assessee’s mother at pages 5 to 12 of the paper ... treatment from 10.09.2018 to 15.07.2019. Under the above facts and circumstances, we find that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) subject to the condition of payment of ₹.10,000/- in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority

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

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 4383/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 200ASection 234ASection 234E

However, we observed that the Ld.CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals of the assessee for want of condonation petition as there was delay in filing appeals by the assessee before him. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) it appears that the Ld. CIT(A) did not give

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

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 4382/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 200ASection 234ASection 234E

However, we observed that the Ld.CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals of the assessee for want of condonation petition as there was delay in filing appeals by the assessee before him. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) it appears that the Ld. CIT(A) did not give

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

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 4381/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 200ASection 234ASection 234E

However, we observed that the Ld.CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals of the assessee for want of condonation petition as there was delay in filing appeals by the assessee before him. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) it appears that the Ld. CIT(A) did not give

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

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 4380/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 200ASection 234ASection 234E

However, we observed that the Ld.CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals of the assessee for want of condonation petition as there was delay in filing appeals by the assessee before him. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) it appears that the Ld. CIT(A) did not give

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

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 4379/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 200ASection 234ASection 234E

However, we observed that the Ld.CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals of the assessee for want of condonation petition as there was delay in filing appeals by the assessee before him. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) it appears that the Ld. CIT(A) did not give

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

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 4376/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 200ASection 234ASection 234E

However, we observed that the Ld.CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals of the assessee for want of condonation petition as there was delay in filing appeals by the assessee before him. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) it appears that the Ld. CIT(A) did not give

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

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 4345/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 200ASection 234ASection 234E

However, we observed that the Ld.CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals of the assessee for want of condonation petition as there was delay in filing appeals by the assessee before him. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) it appears that the Ld. CIT(A) did not give

A.B. Exports Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-27, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 2089/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 बनाम A.B. Exports Private Limited Dcit D-1088, New Friends Colony, Vs. Central Circle-27, New Delhi. E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. Pan No.Aacca4280F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 127Section 69A

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as not maintainable. However, the assessee may file appeal before the appropriate forum i.e. ITAT Mumbai and the delay in filing appeal Mumbai for condonation. With these observations the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable before the Tribunal at Delhi

Eastern Food Industries Pvt. Ltd., Patna vs. ITO, Ward 2 (1), Patna

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 271/PAT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Am

For Appellant: Shri D.V. Pathy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, PATNA BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, AM

Anil Kumar Agarwala, Darjeeling vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Siliguri

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

ITA 254/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyanil Kumar Agarwal, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Siliguri Ground Floor, Dhanotia Bhawan, Nehru Road, Siliguri, Darjeeling-734005 Pan No. :Acfpa 3408 H (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri L.N.Dash, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri L.N.Dash, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 147

ITANo.254/KOL/2025 advise to file appeal within the prescribed time. When the assessee engaged another advocate, he advised that there has already been a delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Subsequently, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 187 days and requested for condoning the delay

Rajesh Babulal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 20(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals bearing ITA Nos 2385 to 2387/Mum/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2386/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A) Are Appearing As Follows:- Sr.No.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR. AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 249(2)Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 68

common ground of delay in filing the appeals belatedly and for contravening the section 249(2) of the Act. The details of delay in filing appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) are appearing as follows:- Sr.No. ITA No. Delay in number of days 1 2385/Mum/2025 682 days 2 2386/Mum/2025 568 days

Rajesh Babulal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 20(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals bearing ITA Nos 2385 to 2387/Mum/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2385/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A) Are Appearing As Follows:- Sr.No.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR. AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 249(2)Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 68

common ground of delay in filing the appeals belatedly and for contravening the section 249(2) of the Act. The details of delay in filing appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) are appearing as follows:- Sr.No. ITA No. Delay in number of days 1 2385/Mum/2025 682 days 2 2386/Mum/2025 568 days

M/S. Mahendra Kumar Jain, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 447/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:447/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.56/B1, Pantheon Road, Vs. Income Tax, Egmore, Non-Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. Pan: Aanpm 2662B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 264Section 56

pursuing alternate remedy such as rectification application u/s.154 of the Act, revision application u/s.264 of the Act and hence there was a delay in filing appeal as against the intimation issued u/s.143(1) of the Act. In support of the assessee’s submission for condonation of delay, he had relied

Jagruti Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward (197)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 372/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Jagruti Co Op Hsg Soc Ito Ward –(197)(6) Ltd. Cpc Bangaluru, L.J. Road Mahim, Vs. 560500. Mumbai-400016. Pan: Aaaat9842L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Pratik Jain, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.11.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Addl/Jcit (A) (In Short Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. In This Case, The Intimation/Order U/S. 143(1) Of The Act Was Issued On Dated 20.05.2015 By The Ito Ward-(197) (6) Mumbai, Whereby The Deduction Claimed By The Assessee U/S. 80(2)(D) Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 7,36,459/- Earned On Its Investment & Saving Bank Account Maintained With Saraswat Co-Operative Bank & The Nkgsb Co-Operative Bank Was Disallowed. The Assessee Against The Said Intimation Dated 20.05.2015 Filed A Rectification Application U/S. 154 Of The Act, However, No Order For Rectification Has Ever Been Passed By The Cpc. The Assessee On Realizing Its 2 M/S. Jagruti Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd. Mistake Challenged The Said Intimation U/S. 143(1) Dated 25.05.2025 By Filing First Appeal On Dated 12.06.2024 But With The Delay Of More Than 9 Years. The Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner By Considering The Peculiar Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ultimately Declined To Entertain The Request For Condonation Of Delay & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine Without Making Any Discussion On Merit Or On Any Other Aspect.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R
Section 14Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(d)

disposed of till date, therefore delay in filing of first appeal cannot be held to latches on part of the Assessee. Thus, delay in filing appeal before the first appellate authority is condoned.” 6. This Court also observe that recently the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case

Nirangdin Trust, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

ITA 295/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jun 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.293 To 295/Srt/2025 (Hybrid Hearing) Nirangdin Trust, Vs. The Cit(Exemption), 12, P. K. Vakil Atashbehram, P. K. Ahmedabad Vakil Street, Shahpore, Gujarat – 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabtp1097M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)

appeals against the subsequent orders dated 16.12.2024 and 21.12.2024 passed by CIT(E). In view of the facts, it was submitted that the delay in filing appeals was not intentional, and assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time. 3. On the other

Nirangdin Trust, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

ITA 294/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jun 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.293 To 295/Srt/2025 (Hybrid Hearing) Nirangdin Trust, Vs. The Cit(Exemption), 12, P. K. Vakil Atashbehram, P. K. Ahmedabad Vakil Street, Shahpore, Gujarat – 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabtp1097M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)

appeals against the subsequent orders dated 16.12.2024 and 21.12.2024 passed by CIT(E). In view of the facts, it was submitted that the delay in filing appeals was not intentional, and assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time. 3. On the other

Shree Surat South Jari Mandal, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahemdabad

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

ITA 246/SRT/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.246 & 245/Srt/2025 (Assessment Years: 2025-26) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Surat South Jari Mandal, Vs. The Cit(Exemption), B-2271, Gopipura, Parsiwad, Ahmedabad Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aavts8551K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025

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

that the delay in ITA Nos.246 & 245/SRT/2025/AY.2025-26 Shree Surat South Jain Mandal filing appeal is due to good and sufficient reasons, therefore, the delay in filing appeal may be condoned. 10. On the other hand, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax - Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue submitted

Shree Surat South Jari Mandal, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 245/SRT/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.246 & 245/Srt/2025 (Assessment Years: 2025-26) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Surat South Jari Mandal, Vs. The Cit(Exemption), B-2271, Gopipura, Parsiwad, Ahmedabad Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aavts8551K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025

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

that the delay in ITA Nos.246 & 245/SRT/2025/AY.2025-26 Shree Surat South Jain Mandal filing appeal is due to good and sufficient reasons, therefore, the delay in filing appeal may be condoned. 10. On the other hand, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax - Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue submitted

Zuari Industries Limited (Formerly Known As Zuari Global Ltd), Zuarinagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Panaji

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

ITA 71/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.71/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19 ) Zuari Industries Limited, Vs National Faceless Jai Kisaan Bhawan, Assessment Centre, Zuarinagar, Delhi. Mormugo, Goa-403728. Pan/Gir No. Aaacz0306P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Ankit Goyal.Ar Revenue By Shri.Captain Pradeep Arya.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10.06.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 11.06.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi /Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Disallowance U/Sec14Aof The Act & Not Condoning The Delay In Filling The Appeal. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assesse Company Is Engaged In The Business. The Assesse Has Filed The Return Of Income For A.Y.2018-19 On 29.11.2018 Disclosing

Section 14A

limitation period is applicable in Covid2019 pandemic and the reasonable cause is explained. We find that no benefit is derived in causing delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A) and also the assessee is supported with sufficient cause and pragmatic approach should be considered for condonation of delay