← 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

Smt. Ginny Soin, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 705/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Apr 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

record for filing the appeals. According to the assessee, this situation led the appeals to become time barred. The assessees have prayed that delay in filing appeal be condoned and the same be decided on merit. 3. The ld. CIT DR, on the other hand submitted that assessees should

Smt. Ginny Soin, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 704/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Apr 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

record for filing the appeals. According to the assessee, this situation led the appeals to become time barred. The assessees have prayed that delay in filing appeal be condoned and the same be decided on merit. 3. The ld. CIT DR, on the other hand submitted that assessees should

Sh. Dinesh Soin, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 306/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Apr 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

record for filing the appeals. According to the assessee, this situation led the appeals to become time barred. The assessees have prayed that delay in filing appeal be condoned and the same be decided on merit. 3. The ld. CIT DR, on the other hand submitted that assessees should

Ravikiran Gopalrao Alavandi, Ratnagiri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

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

ITA 666/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.666/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ravikiran Gopalrao Alavandi, V The Income Tax Officer, A-2/21, Potnis Parisar, Off S Pune. Girija Shankar Vihar, Karve Nagar, Pune – 411052. Pan: Acupa7585L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 250

following Grounds of Appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the delay in filing appeal can't be condoned. The ITA No.666/PUN/2025 [A] appellant prays that the delay be condoned and appeal should be taken up for hearing

Gurunath Shambhu Vernekar, Pune vs. ITO, TDS-1, Pune

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 141/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.136 To 141/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 Gurunath Shambhi Vernekar, V The Income Tax Officer, Office No.113, Gagan Enclave, S Tds-1, Pune. Gangadham Road, Bibwewadi, Pune – 411037. Maharashtra. Pan: Pnego6309C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate & Advocate-M.Ashvini – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 13.12.2024. Assessee Has Filed Identical Grounds For All These Years. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Appeals Were Heard

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

deleted. 2. Under the facts and Circumstances of case and in law, Ld CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal despite of the fact that appeal is filed on legal ground. 3. The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete ... without any basis.” 5.6 Thus, Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that when there is no jurisdiction to levy late fee, the delay in filing appeal shall not be the ground for denying relief to the assessee. In the case under consideration, though there has been delay in filing appeal

Gurunath Shambhu Vernekar, Pune vs. ITO, TDS-1, Pune

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 140/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.136 To 141/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 Gurunath Shambhi Vernekar, V The Income Tax Officer, Office No.113, Gagan Enclave, S Tds-1, Pune. Gangadham Road, Bibwewadi, Pune – 411037. Maharashtra. Pan: Pnego6309C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate & Advocate-M.Ashvini – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 13.12.2024. Assessee Has Filed Identical Grounds For All These Years. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Appeals Were Heard

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

deleted. 2. Under the facts and Circumstances of case and in law, Ld CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal despite of the fact that appeal is filed on legal ground. 3. The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete ... without any basis.” 5.6 Thus, Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that when there is no jurisdiction to levy late fee, the delay in filing appeal shall not be the ground for denying relief to the assessee. In the case under consideration, though there has been delay in filing appeal

Gurunath Shambhu Vernekar, Pune vs. ITO, TDS-1, Pune

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 139/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.136 To 141/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 Gurunath Shambhi Vernekar, V The Income Tax Officer, Office No.113, Gagan Enclave, S Tds-1, Pune. Gangadham Road, Bibwewadi, Pune – 411037. Maharashtra. Pan: Pnego6309C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate & Advocate-M.Ashvini – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 13.12.2024. Assessee Has Filed Identical Grounds For All These Years. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Appeals Were Heard

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

deleted. 2. Under the facts and Circumstances of case and in law, Ld CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal despite of the fact that appeal is filed on legal ground. 3. The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete ... without any basis.” 5.6 Thus, Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that when there is no jurisdiction to levy late fee, the delay in filing appeal shall not be the ground for denying relief to the assessee. In the case under consideration, though there has been delay in filing appeal

Gurunath Shambhu Vernekar, Pune vs. ITO, TDS-1, Pune

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 138/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.136 To 141/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 Gurunath Shambhi Vernekar, V The Income Tax Officer, Office No.113, Gagan Enclave, S Tds-1, Pune. Gangadham Road, Bibwewadi, Pune – 411037. Maharashtra. Pan: Pnego6309C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate & Advocate-M.Ashvini – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 13.12.2024. Assessee Has Filed Identical Grounds For All These Years. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Appeals Were Heard

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

deleted. 2. Under the facts and Circumstances of case and in law, Ld CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal despite of the fact that appeal is filed on legal ground. 3. The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete ... without any basis.” 5.6 Thus, Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that when there is no jurisdiction to levy late fee, the delay in filing appeal shall not be the ground for denying relief to the assessee. In the case under consideration, though there has been delay in filing appeal

Gurunath Shambhu Vernekar, Pune vs. ITO, TDS-1, Pune

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 137/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.136 To 141/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 Gurunath Shambhi Vernekar, V The Income Tax Officer, Office No.113, Gagan Enclave, S Tds-1, Pune. Gangadham Road, Bibwewadi, Pune – 411037. Maharashtra. Pan: Pnego6309C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate & Advocate-M.Ashvini – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 13.12.2024. Assessee Has Filed Identical Grounds For All These Years. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Appeals Were Heard

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

deleted. 2. Under the facts and Circumstances of case and in law, Ld CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal despite of the fact that appeal is filed on legal ground. 3. The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete ... without any basis.” 5.6 Thus, Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that when there is no jurisdiction to levy late fee, the delay in filing appeal shall not be the ground for denying relief to the assessee. In the case under consideration, though there has been delay in filing appeal

Gurunath Shambhu Vernekar, Pune vs. ITO, TDS-1, Pune

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 136/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.136 To 141/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 Gurunath Shambhi Vernekar, V The Income Tax Officer, Office No.113, Gagan Enclave, S Tds-1, Pune. Gangadham Road, Bibwewadi, Pune – 411037. Maharashtra. Pan: Pnego6309C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate & Advocate-M.Ashvini – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 13.12.2024. Assessee Has Filed Identical Grounds For All These Years. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Appeals Were Heard

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

deleted. 2. Under the facts and Circumstances of case and in law, Ld CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal despite of the fact that appeal is filed on legal ground. 3. The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete ... without any basis.” 5.6 Thus, Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that when there is no jurisdiction to levy late fee, the delay in filing appeal shall not be the ground for denying relief to the assessee. In the case under consideration, though there has been delay in filing appeal

Parijat Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office 28 2 1, Vashi Navi Mumbai

ITA 6393/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sushant Alme, CAFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

months. Thereafter, assessee proceeded to file the present appeal along with petition for condonation of delay and affidavit. According to the assessee, the delay in filing appeal was unintentional and bonafide and hence prayed for condoning the same. Parijat Coop Credit Society

Nilesh Parsottambhai Javiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Junagadh

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are

ITA 870/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. Sat Sole S/Ita No.870/Rjt/2024

For Appellant: Shri Digant Kiyada, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 144

compliance before Ld.CIT(A) as well as non-service of impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A), which ultimately resulted in delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. I note that the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient

Lalita Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1410/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1410/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Lalita Devi Sharma Murlidhar Sharma Dhani Vs. Harsaura, Baskhoh, Jaipur Baskho, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: HCPPS 0547 Q प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

also a contributing factor as assessee was engaged in attending to her. The Court held on facts, cause shown by assessee for delay in filing appeal was genuine and bona fide, therefore, impugned order was to be set aside and, matter was to be remanded back for disposal on merits

Dhondiram Tukaram Bhonge, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ichalkaranji

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

ITA 848/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Assessee could not file replies in time before the Assessing Officer as well as ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for delay in filing appeal for 290 days. Ld.CIT(A) has ignored the Affidavit which explains the reasons for delay. Ld.AR pleaded that delay may kindly be condoned

Somani Realty, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 22(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1245/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 254(1)Section 801Section 801BSection 80I

record perused. The Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) of the assessee submits that there is delay of 116 days in filing appeal. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee is Association of Person (AOP). The assessee has filed affidavit of one of the member

Gojiya Bhikhubhai, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissionerof Income Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 612/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, Id. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Id.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

different assessees, however, these three assessees belong to one group. In all these appeals, viz. ITA No.609, 610 and 612/RJT/2024, there are delay in filing appeals of 119 days, 119 days and 120 days, respectively, before this Tribunal. The assessees have moved petition for condonation of delay in each appeal

Shree Samarth Electricals Pvt Ltd, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 610/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

different assessees, however, these three assessees belong to one group. In all these appeals, viz. ITA No.609, 610 and 612/RJT/2024, there are delay in filing appeals of 119 days, 119 days and 120 days, respectively, before this Tribunal. The assessees have moved petition for condonation of delay in each appeal

Shree Samarth Switchgear and Transmission Pvt Ltd, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 609/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

different assessees, however, these three assessees belong to one group. In all these appeals, viz. ITA No.609, 610 and 612/RJT/2024, there are delay in filing appeals of 119 days, 119 days and 120 days, respectively, before this Tribunal. The assessees have moved petition for condonation of delay in each appeal

Amratalal Karsandas Samani, Jamkhambhaliya vs. Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 463/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.463/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Amrutlalkarsandassamani Vs. Principal Commissioner Rest House Road, Of Income Tax, Jodhpur Gate, Jamnagar-361008 Jam Khambhaliya, Dist: Devbhoomi Dwarka-361305. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhps5447P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mahesh Paun, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Pungalia, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27 /02 /2025 : 25 /04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungalia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

Counsel for the assessee explained the sufficient cause for delay, stating that because of the mistake of the advocate/accountant of the assessee, the delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal has occurred for 68 days. Because of death of the assessee, there was a tension environment in the family ... duty of the assessee to take care and to make compliance of the time limit in respect of filing the appeal, therefore, delay in filing appeal should not be condoned. 5.We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We note that mistake of an advocate in filing

Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-3, Navsari

In the result, both appeal of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 965/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.965/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, बनाम/ 48, Paradi, Balak Valsad, Navsari, Room No.206, Income Vs. Navsari-396 475 Tax Officer, Char Pool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Awspp 7295 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.830/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Navsari, Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel बनाम/ Room No.206, Income Tax Officer, 48, Paradi, Arak Valsad, Vs. Char Pool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 Navsari-396 475 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Awspp 7295 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

work within time limit for which there is delay of 32 days in filing appeal. The Ld. AR has requested to condone the delay in filing appeal in the interest of justice. The Ld. AR submitted that delay of 32 days was neither deliberate nor intentional. ITA No.965 & 830/SRT/2024/AY.17-18 Kiritbhai