← 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

Leisure and Lifestyle Information Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the only ground of appeal against disallowance of Rs

ITA 461/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 270A

reiterated the same facts as stated in the application for condonation of delay and submitted that there is no delay in filing appeal, even if it is, delay is for sufficient cause and therefore the appeal of the assessee should be admitted. 5. The ld. DR vehemently objected and stated

Bhupesh Ravinder Datt Sharma, Australia vs. ITO, Ward- 2(85), Delhi

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

ITA 1306/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1306/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2016-17) Bhupesh Ravinder Datt Sharma, 16A, Fisher Street, Victoria, Australia 314500 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Augps-4400-A बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-28(5), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 20/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 19.12.2024, For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Filed Return Of Income U/S. 139 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Impugned Assessment Year Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,11,370/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny, Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act Dated 14.07.2017 Was Issued To The Assessee. Despite Service Of Aforesaid Notice, The Assessee Failed To Respond To The Same. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 5Section 68

about the assessment order in May 2019 when he visited India and logged into the IT Portal. Thus, there is bonafide reason for delay in filing appeal.” The CIT(A) despite specific reason given by the assessee causing delay in filing of appeal dismissed the appeal in limine

Save A Family Plan (India), Kanjoor vs. DCIT(Exemption), Kochi

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

ITA 138/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Save A Family Plan (India) Dy. Cit, Exemption Aiswaryagram, Parappuram San Juan Towers, 2Nd Floor Vs. Kanjoor - 683575 Old Railway Station Road [Pan:Aabts9439E] Kochi 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abraham J. Markose, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

held that there is sufficient reasonable cause in filing the appeal with a delay of 265 days, accordingly condoned the delay. Thus, the delay in filing appeal stands condoned by the order passed by Third Member. We now proceed to dwell into the merits of the order passed

The Satara Dcc Bank Staff Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Satara vs. ACIT, Satara Circle, Satara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 633/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.633/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Satara Dcc Bank Staff V The Asst. Commissioner Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., S. Of Income Tax, Satara S.No.523 A/1, Vijay Circle, Satara. Millenium, Shop No.2, Satara, Maharashtra – 415001. Pan: Aaaat0953G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ms. Renuka Arunrao Ghatge Fca– Ar Revenue By Shri Vinodpawar,Irs – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, For The A.Y.2018-19, Dated 06.02.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Nfac-Cit (A), Delhi, Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Assessing Officer (A.O.) In Making Addition Of Rs. 93,91,184/- On

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

No.633/PUN/2025 [A] 4.3 We have perused the Affidavit filed by the assessee and it is observed that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Even otherwise substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. 4.4 In this case, it is an admitted fact that

Jagshi K. Shah Patriwala Charitable Turst, Mumbai vs. The CIT (Exemption(, Mumbai

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

ITA 2197/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2197/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2024-25) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2196/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2024-25)

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 8G(5)

knowedge of the appellant only after receipt of order for the A.Y. 2023 2024 on 26/27th February 2025 (vi) There is delay in filing appeal against rejection of registration u/s 12AB of IT Act, 1961, which was rejected by the CIT(Exemption) Mumbai on 9th February 2024 and which came ... appellant i.e. to the managing trustees only on 27th February 2025. The appellant prevented from sufficient cause beyond his control. (vii) There is delay in filing appeal against rejection of approval u/s 8G(5) (i) of Income tax Act 1961 by the CIT(exemption) Mumbai on 22nd February

Percival Joseph Pereira, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It) -3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4662/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(5)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

deleted.” 1) The Ld CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal with appreciating that Assessee had shown sufficient cause for delay and hence the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) may be condoned 2) The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening

Percival Joseph Pereira, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It)-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4661/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(5)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

deleted.” 1) The Ld CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal with appreciating that Assessee had shown sufficient cause for delay and hence the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) may be condoned 2) The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening

Medsave Health Insurance Tpa Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1028/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 3

this common order. 3. Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals as well as appeal on merit illegally. He submitted that Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeals ... months 6 days 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid details, Ld.CIT(A) vide his order dated 23.03.2022 dismissed the applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals as well as appeals were dismissed on merit. Ld.CIT(A) erred in dealing with appeals on merit without condoning the delay in filing

Medsave Health Insurance Tpa Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1015/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 3

this common order. 3. Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals as well as appeal on merit illegally. He submitted that Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeals ... months 6 days 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid details, Ld.CIT(A) vide his order dated 23.03.2022 dismissed the applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals as well as appeals were dismissed on merit. Ld.CIT(A) erred in dealing with appeals on merit without condoning the delay in filing

Medsave Health Insurance Tpa Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1014/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 3

this common order. 3. Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals as well as appeal on merit illegally. He submitted that Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeals ... months 6 days 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid details, Ld.CIT(A) vide his order dated 23.03.2022 dismissed the applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals as well as appeals were dismissed on merit. Ld.CIT(A) erred in dealing with appeals on merit without condoning the delay in filing

Shree Jamnagar Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited, Jamnagar vs. DCIT-Cir-2(1), Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 223/RJT/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.223/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Janvi Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

delay by taking view that no documentary evidence is filed by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee prayed for condonation of delay in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) on medical ground of tax consultant. 4. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue, opposed the prayer ... application, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. I, accordingly, condone the delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A). 6. On merit, I note that while passing assessment order, the AO made addition of Rs.12

Saramma Thomas Thankachan, Kollam vs. ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 839/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17 Saramma Thomas Thankachan Robin Cottage Nedumpaikulam Ito& Vs. Kundara Po Nfac, Kerala 691 501 Delhi Pan No :Audpt5972D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri N.S. Panicker, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 9.8.2024 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067491706(1) For The Ay 2016- 17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Panicker, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 68

limine under the provisions of section 249(3) r.w.s. 250 of the Act as the assessee could not show any sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the reasons cited by the assessee are not found tenable ... order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC we also take a note of the fact that ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone the delay in filing appeal before him as the reason cited by the assessee were not found tenable and in view of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee

Sharad Pandurang Kardile, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(5), Pune

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

ITA 2009/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2009/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Chandan KatariyaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 133ASection 144Section 250Section 5

INSC 382) condoned delay of 1537 days sub- serving the cause of justice. It was held so while observing that the delay in filing appeal by the appellant was unintentional, much less due to any deliberate laches, and was well-explained by the State before the High Court

Ketan Harshadrai Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 1(2)(5), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5449/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh&Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Ketanharshadrai Mehta Ito,Ward-1(2)(5), 67/2, Baliramganpatmahatre Bldg. Vs Kalyanmohan Plaza, Kongaon, Bhiwandi, Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Maharashtra-421311. Kalyan(W). [Pan No. Aajpm 9528 L Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 68

outset of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that there is delay of 187 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee has filed his affidavit in explaining the cause of delay. The ld. AR of the assessee ... mail, the assessee has given his e-mail asketan.company@gmail.com. The assessee was not received on such e-mail. The ld. AR submits that delay in filing appeal may be condoned. The assessee has good case on merit and is liable to succeed if one more opportunity to contest the case

Sunil Nagesh Shet, Thane West vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5), Thane

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

ITA 4547/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh&Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Sunil Nageshshet Ito,Ward-3(5), Thane 1/18, Vinayak Bhavan Kolbad Road, Vs B-Wing, 6Th Floor, Near Pratap Cinema Thane (W), Ashar It Park, Road No. 16Z, Maharashtra-400601. Wagle Estate, Thane-West, [Pan No. Aegps 2748 B] Maharashtra-400604. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 132Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148Section 254(1)

filing appeal before Tribunal. The assessee has already filed application for condonation of delay. The ld. AR of the assesse submits that delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reason that assessee was not medically fit and advice to take complete rest by medical ... professional. The copy of medical prescription and advice for complete rest is filed on record. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that delay in filing appeal may be condoned and the assessee may be allowed to contest the case on merit. On merits of the additions

Jagshi K. Shah Patriwala Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. The CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 2196/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2197/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2024-25) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2196/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2024-25) Jagshi K. Shah Charitable Trust 801, Vimal Smruti, 770 Dr, Ghanti Road, Parsi Colony, Dadar (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400014 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaetj1496P Appellant/अपीलार्थी V/S. बनाम Cit (Exemption), Mumbai 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Building, Pedder Road, Dr. G.D. Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026 .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Dinesh Shah राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Vivek Perampurna सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 15.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(E)"] Dated 09.02.2024 In Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S 12A & Application In Form 10Ab For Approval U/S 80G Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”]. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 8G(5)

knowedge of the appellant only after receipt of order for the A.Y. 2023 2024 on 26/27th February 2025 (vi) There is delay in filing appeal against rejection of registration u/s 12AB of IT Act, 1961, which was rejected by the CIT(Exemption) Mumbai on 9th February 2024 and which came ... appellant i.e. to the managing trustees only on 27th February 2025. The appellant prevented from sufficient cause beyond his control. (vii) There is delay in filing appeal against rejection of approval u/s 8G(5) (i) of Income tax Act 1961 by the CIT(exemption) Mumbai on 22nd February

Unus Abdulgafar Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 655/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 4.3 There has been a Delay of filing appeal before this Tribunal also. However, as discussed above, we are convinced that there was a reasonable and sufficient cause for delay. Therefore, respectfully ... No.652/PUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA Nos.653, 654 and 655/PUN/2025 : 5. Similarly, in these three appeals also, there was a delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) as under : A.Y. Delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) 2015-16 71 days 2016-17 59 days

Unus Abdulgafar Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 654/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 4.3 There has been a Delay of filing appeal before this Tribunal also. However, as discussed above, we are convinced that there was a reasonable and sufficient cause for delay. Therefore, respectfully ... No.652/PUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA Nos.653, 654 and 655/PUN/2025 : 5. Similarly, in these three appeals also, there was a delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) as under : A.Y. Delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) 2015-16 71 days 2016-17 59 days

Unus Abdulgafar Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 653/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 4.3 There has been a Delay of filing appeal before this Tribunal also. However, as discussed above, we are convinced that there was a reasonable and sufficient cause for delay. Therefore, respectfully ... No.652/PUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA Nos.653, 654 and 655/PUN/2025 : 5. Similarly, in these three appeals also, there was a delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) as under : A.Y. Delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) 2015-16 71 days 2016-17 59 days

Unus Abdulgafar Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 652/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 4.3 There has been a Delay of filing appeal before this Tribunal also. However, as discussed above, we are convinced that there was a reasonable and sufficient cause for delay. Therefore, respectfully ... No.652/PUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA Nos.653, 654 and 655/PUN/2025 : 5. Similarly, in these three appeals also, there was a delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) as under : A.Y. Delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) 2015-16 71 days 2016-17 59 days