← 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Na vs. Ari, Navsarivs.Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel, Navsari

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

ITA 830/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

Enayat Ebadat Hussain, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 161/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.161/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Enayat Ebadat Hussain, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.34, Gut No.20, Near S Ward-1(1), Nashik. Noori Masjid, Chunchale Amdar Satpur Ambad Link Roadk, Nashik – 422010. Maharashtra. Pan: Acdph9890C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare –Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 29.11.2024 For Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 250Section 68

parties and perused the records. Ld.CIT(A) has held as under : “In the present appeal, the appellant has not mentioned any reason for delay in filing appeal. Since, the appellant has not furnished any genuine reason supported with any evidence to that effect, the appeal is dismissed on grounds ... Assessee had filed an Affidavit. We have perused the Affidavit filed by the Assessee and observed that there were sufficient reasons for the delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 4.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy

Labhuben Manubhai Mangukiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(5), Surat

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

ITA 773/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.773/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Labhuben Manubhai Mangukiya. Vs. The Ito, 24, Ramkrishna Society, L.H. Road, Ward-3(3)(5), Surat - 395006 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aczpm1695G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 68

revenue submitted that the reasons given by the appellant is not sufficient to condone the delay. He submitted that there was delay in filing appeal even before the CIT(A). He submitted that if the Bench decides to condone the delay, appropriate cost may be imposed on the assessee

Collective Efforts for Voluntary Action, Chamba vs. CIT(Appeal), Income Tax Department

In the result, the appeal of the assessee I

ITA 879/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble Vice- & Sh. Krinwant Sahay, Hon’Ble(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.879/Chandi/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 12ASection 154Section 250

also considered the CBDT Circular on this issue. Having gone through all these documents, circular and orders, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and as requested by the ld. AR of the assessee the case is being remanded back

Krishna Filling Station, Karimnagar vs. ITO., Ward-2, Karimnagar

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

ITA 52/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(2)Section 250

assessee has not filed any request or reason for condonation of delay. In view of non- submission of any explanation for the delay in filing appeal, the learned CIT(A) noted that it is not a technical defect which cannot be ignored in view of the specific provision of Section

Srk Constructions and Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

ITA 359/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

contrary to the facts available on record. Therefore, we are of the considered view, that the reasons given by the appellant for delay in filing appeal does not come under “sufficient and reasonable cause”. 8. Having said so, let us come back to the second reason given by the appellant

Srk Constructions and Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 389/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

contrary to the facts available on record. Therefore, we are of the considered view, that the reasons given by the appellant for delay in filing appeal does not come under "sufficient and reasonable cause”. 8. Having said so, let us come back to the second reason given by the appellant

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Srk Construction Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

ITA 1415/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

contrary to the facts available on record. Therefore, we are of the considered view, that the reasons given by the appellant for delay in filing appeal does not come under “sufficient and reasonable cause”. 8. Having said so, let us come back to the second reason given by the appellant

Rakesh Kumar Dugar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw03(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3134/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3134 / Chny / 2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.I.Roopa, Addl, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44A

submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that the principal controversy in the matter is non-condonation of delay in filing appeal before him by the Ld. Addl.CIT(A) on the observation that order u/s 143(1) dated 19.03.2019 was received by the assessee

Atul Naryan Bhoir, Bhiwandi, Dist Thane vs. ITO 1(1) Kalyan, Kalyan

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

ITA 1333/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 250Section 254(1)

assessment order, the appeal was filed within statutory period of 30 days for filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise, the delay in filing appeal during the COVID-19 pandemic period was directed to be condoned by Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo-Moto Writ Petition (supra). 3 Atul

Laxmi Narayan, Agra vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(2), Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5/AGR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)

prescriptions have also been enclosed along with the delay condonation application. In the circumstances, we deem it just and appropriate to condone the delay in filing appeal. The delay is accordingly condoned. 7. Ld. DR has stated that the assessee has been negligent before the first appellate authority

The Stray Army Charitable Trust, Jamshedpur vs. ITO(E), Exemption Ward Jamshedpur / CIT(E) Patna, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 54/RAN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kr. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 12ASection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH VIRTUAL HEARING MODE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH

The Stray Army Charitable Trust, Jamshedpur vs. ITO(E), Exemption Ward Jamshedpur / CIT(E) Patna, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 53/RAN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kr. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 12ASection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH VIRTUAL HEARING MODE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH

Shri Bharatbhai Raysinh Vala, Devali Deda, Kodinar, Dist. Junagadh vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(4), Amreli

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

ITA 603/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148A

Raysinh Vala ITA No. 603/Rjt/2024 (AY 2018-19) appellant on the ground that there is no sufficient or good reason for condoning the delay in filing appeal with his office without appreciating that the appellant's situation and reasons because of which the delay had happened. 2. On the facts

Deohara Co-Operative Cane Development Union Limited, Bijnor vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Bijnor

In the result, appeals of the assessee in Appeal Nos

ITA 2852/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2851/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2018-19) The Income Tax Seohara Co-Operative Cane Officer, Development Union Vs. Ward-3(1), Limited, 34-Station Road, Nazibabad-1, Up Seohara, Bijnor-246746. Pan-Aabas4970K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gurneet, Adv. Department By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Three Separate Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) & All Are Dated 23.3.2024 For Ay 2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Seohara Co-Operative Cane Development Union India Vs. Ito 2. As All The Three Appeals Are Related To One Assessment Year Against Three Seperate Orders Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 144B & Consequential Penalty Order U/S 270A & 271B Of The Act, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Filed By The Assessee On Account Of Delay In Filing The Respective Appeals. Since The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Relating To Dismissal Of Appeals Without Condoning The Delay In Filing, Thus All The Three Appeals Are Taken Together & Disposed Off By A Single Order.

Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 271BSection 44A

appeals of the assessee without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing appeal, solely for the reason that no application requesting the condonation of delay was filed by the assessee. It was the submission that ... Regarding the other appeal against the penalty orders, it was submitted that theses are consequential action and thus, it was the prayer that delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) be condoned and the appeal may be decided on merits. 6. In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that

Seohara Co-Operative Cane Development Union Limited, Bijnor vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Bijnor

In the result, appeals of the assessee in Appeal Nos

ITA 2851/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2851/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2018-19) The Income Tax Seohara Co-Operative Cane Officer, Development Union Vs. Ward-3(1), Limited, 34-Station Road, Nazibabad-1, Up Seohara, Bijnor-246746. Pan-Aabas4970K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gurneet, Adv. Department By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Three Separate Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) & All Are Dated 23.3.2024 For Ay 2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Seohara Co-Operative Cane Development Union India Vs. Ito 2. As All The Three Appeals Are Related To One Assessment Year Against Three Seperate Orders Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 144B & Consequential Penalty Order U/S 270A & 271B Of The Act, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Filed By The Assessee On Account Of Delay In Filing The Respective Appeals. Since The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Relating To Dismissal Of Appeals Without Condoning The Delay In Filing, Thus All The Three Appeals Are Taken Together & Disposed Off By A Single Order.

Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 271BSection 44A

appeals of the assessee without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing appeal, solely for the reason that no application requesting the condonation of delay was filed by the assessee. It was the submission that ... Regarding the other appeal against the penalty orders, it was submitted that theses are consequential action and thus, it was the prayer that delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) be condoned and the appeal may be decided on merits. 6. In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that

Seohara Co-Operative Cane Development Union Limited, Bijnor vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Bijnor

In the result, appeals of the assessee in Appeal Nos

ITA 2850/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2851/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2018-19) The Income Tax Seohara Co-Operative Cane Officer, Development Union Vs. Ward-3(1), Limited, 34-Station Road, Nazibabad-1, Up Seohara, Bijnor-246746. Pan-Aabas4970K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gurneet, Adv. Department By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Three Separate Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) & All Are Dated 23.3.2024 For Ay 2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Seohara Co-Operative Cane Development Union India Vs. Ito 2. As All The Three Appeals Are Related To One Assessment Year Against Three Seperate Orders Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 144B & Consequential Penalty Order U/S 270A & 271B Of The Act, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Filed By The Assessee On Account Of Delay In Filing The Respective Appeals. Since The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Relating To Dismissal Of Appeals Without Condoning The Delay In Filing, Thus All The Three Appeals Are Taken Together & Disposed Off By A Single Order.

Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 271BSection 44A

appeals of the assessee without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing appeal, solely for the reason that no application requesting the condonation of delay was filed by the assessee. It was the submission that ... Regarding the other appeal against the penalty orders, it was submitted that theses are consequential action and thus, it was the prayer that delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) be condoned and the appeal may be decided on merits. 6. In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that

Shruparak Educational and Medical Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exem. Ward 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 927/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalshruparak Educational & Medical Ito (Exem.) Ward – 2(3) Trust, 702, Anne Ville, 30Th Road, Room No. 617, Cumballa T.P.S. 3, Bandra (W), Hills, Mtnl-Te Building, Vs. Mumbai – 400 050. Pedder Road, Dr Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Pan: Aabts 7822 F Mumbai – 400026. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, Advicate Revenue By : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dated 09.06.2023 For A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, AdvicateFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 254(1)

filed an affidavit of Najeeb M. Chawre Managing Trustee of Shruparak Educational and Medical Trust. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The impugned order was passed by ld. CIT(A) on 09.06.2023. The order passed ... ITBA portal, it was revealed that their appeal has already been dismissed on 09.06.2023. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that delay in filing appeal is not intentional or deliberate. Copy of screen shot of ITBA portal showing about sending of notice at different e- mail that

Lok Everest Co-Op Hsg Limitd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 908/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhshri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Lok Everest Co-Op Hsg Limited Ito, Ward - 41(2)(3), B2 Mezzanine Floor Lok Everest, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Jsd Road, Mulund (W), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400080. Mumbai-400051 Maharashtra. Pan No. Aaaak 6797 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee Represented By Shri Shashank Mehta –Ca/ Ar Department Represented By Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/04/2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)Section 80ISection 80P(2)(d)

limine. All such facts are recorded by ld. CIT(A) in his order. The ld AR of the assessee submits that the delay in filing appeal before ld CIT(A) was neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee was persuing remedy by filing application for rectification in a bonafide ... assessee is not going to be benefitted in filing appeal belatedly. The ld AR of the assessee submits that delay in filing appeal before ld CIT(A) may be condoned and the appeal may be considered on merit. 3. On merit of the grounds of appeal

Mahesh Krishnakant Pandey, Ghatkopar West vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27 2 2 Mumbai, Vashi Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1249/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 250Section 254(1)

before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed the affidavit for explaining the cause of dealy. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that AO as well as CIT(A) passed the ex-parte ... submission of both the parties and perused the orders of lower authorities. Firstly, I will consider the plea of assessee for condoning the delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. Before me, the Ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that there is no intentional of deliberate delay in filing appeal