← 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

Snowfall Commercial Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT 11(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1182/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR
Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT

Snowfall Commercial Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 11(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1181/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR
Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT

Shivaji Vishnupant Vidhate, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 71/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Br Baskaranhon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainshivaji Vishnupant Vidhate Vs. Dcit, Circle 7(1)(1) Flat No. B-3002, Bhoomi Aayakar Bhavan, Paradise, Plot No. 2 & 3, Mumbai. Sector – 11, New Mumbai, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai – 400 705. Pan/Gir No. Aaapv4527F (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250

Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC), we are inclined to condone the delay in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly the delay stands condoned. 3 Shivaji Vishnupant Vidhate, Mumbai. 6. Since we have already condoned the delay

Manoj Kumar Yadav, Siwan vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Siwan

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

ITA 439/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

Gupta (2015) where it was held that genuine reasons such as medical emergencies and family obligations constitute valid grounds for condonation of delay in filing appeals. 2. Form No. 35 has not been filed. However, I wish to clarify that Form No. 35 has already been filed, and a copy

Shree Nityanandswami Education Trust, Dharmaj Tarapur Road Nar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, DCIT (Exemption) Ahmedbad

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

ITA 1421/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Panchal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154

following grounds have been taken in this appeal: “(1) The NFAC has dismissed the appeal without considering the prayer of the assessee for delay in filing appeal and without providing opportunity to submit clarification by assessee with supporting proof. (2) The NFAC did not consider the appeal in merit

Panhera Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Buldhana vs. ITO Ward-2, Khamgaon

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

ITA 520/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) is justified in not condoning the delay in filing appeal. 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in passing an order in breach of principle of natural justice

Mr. Bajarangaprasad Sambhuprasad Patwa, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 41(4)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 213/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2011-12 Mr. Bajarangaprasad Income Tax Officer, Sambhuprasad Patwa, Ward-41(4)(1), Room No. 53, 5Th Floor, Vs. Room No. 854A, 8Th Floor, Shiv Dham Complex, Kautilya Bhavan, Madhuban Baug, Bandra Kurla Complex, Goregaon, Bandra East, Mumbai Mumbai Pan : Agvpp5838J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Sr.DR

cause for the 3 assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before the Ld.CIT(A) as well as before ITAT. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) and also before the ITAT. 4. We noticed that the assessee did not furnish any details before both

Vipul Lallubhai Kukadiya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 1051/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1051/Srt/2024 (Ay 2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Vipul Lallubhai Kukadiya Income Tax Officer, Ward- 126, Gitanagar Society-2, 2(3)(4), Surat, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम Near Sitaram Chawk, Punagam, Majura Gate, Vs Surat-394 101 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Awppk 7950 P] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 44ASection 69A

both parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. First we are considering the plea of assessee for condonation of delay in filing appeal. Before us, the ld AR of the assessee that delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, rather the delay is very small and that ... assessee is interested in perusing the matter. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the delay in filing appeal is only of five days, which is otherwise not intentional or malafide, therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay of 5 days in filing appeal

Durga Kailas Gupta, Malegaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Malegaon

In the result, all four the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2436/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2425, 2427, 2435 & 2436/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2013-14 & 2013-14 Durga Kailas Gupta, V The Income Tax Officer, New Janta Building, S G.No.425, P.No.5, Chalisgaon Phata, Maharashtra – 423203. Pan: Alapg0234F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Bunch Of Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; For The Assessment Years Referred Above. Assessee Has Filed Identical Grounds For All These Years. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, Therefore, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Common Order.

Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

outset of hearing, ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeals before the ld.CIT(A) were barred by limitation and the delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) were not condoned and he accordingly, dismissed the appeal by not admitting being barred by limitation. Prayer has been made before

Durga Kailas Gupta, Malegaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Malegaon

In the result, all four the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2435/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2425, 2427, 2435 & 2436/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2013-14 & 2013-14 Durga Kailas Gupta, V The Income Tax Officer, New Janta Building, S G.No.425, P.No.5, Chalisgaon Phata, Maharashtra – 423203. Pan: Alapg0234F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Bunch Of Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; For The Assessment Years Referred Above. Assessee Has Filed Identical Grounds For All These Years. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, Therefore, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Common Order.

Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

outset of hearing, ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeals before the ld.CIT(A) were barred by limitation and the delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) were not condoned and he accordingly, dismissed the appeal by not admitting being barred by limitation. Prayer has been made before

Durga Kailas Gupta, Malegaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Malegaon

In the result, all four the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2427/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2425, 2427, 2435 & 2436/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2013-14 & 2013-14 Durga Kailas Gupta, V The Income Tax Officer, New Janta Building, S G.No.425, P.No.5, Chalisgaon Phata, Maharashtra – 423203. Pan: Alapg0234F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Bunch Of Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; For The Assessment Years Referred Above. Assessee Has Filed Identical Grounds For All These Years. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, Therefore, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Common Order.

Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

outset of hearing, ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeals before the ld.CIT(A) were barred by limitation and the delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) were not condoned and he accordingly, dismissed the appeal by not admitting being barred by limitation. Prayer has been made before

Durga Kailas Gupta, Malegaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Malegaon

In the result, all four the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2425/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2425, 2427, 2435 & 2436/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2013-14 & 2013-14 Durga Kailas Gupta, V The Income Tax Officer, New Janta Building, S G.No.425, P.No.5, Chalisgaon Phata, Maharashtra – 423203. Pan: Alapg0234F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Bunch Of Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; For The Assessment Years Referred Above. Assessee Has Filed Identical Grounds For All These Years. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, Therefore, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Common Order.

Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

outset of hearing, ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeals before the ld.CIT(A) were barred by limitation and the delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) were not condoned and he accordingly, dismissed the appeal by not admitting being barred by limitation. Prayer has been made before

Nitinkumar Manubhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(2)(8), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1159/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1159/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Nitinkumar Manubhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward- 23, Patel Faliya, Varachha Road, 3(2)(8), Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, बनाम Nana Varachha, Surat-395 006 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Vs [Pan : Abypp 4221 H] Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 115BSection 250Section 254(1)

submissions of both the parties and have gone through order of lower authorities carefully. Firstly, we are considering the plea of condonation of delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. We find that main submission of Ld. AR of the assessee is that at the time of filing first appeal before

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata vs. Emas Expressway Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1162/KOL/2023[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2025AY 2005-2006

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 250

presenting the appeal within due time and the appeal may kindly be heard on merit for the interest of Revenue after condoning delay in filing appeal for genuine reasons as mentioned above.” 1.1 Considering the reasons spelt out in the petition for condonation of delay, the delay is condoned

Pratikkumar Shashikantbhai Javiya, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajkot

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

ITA 867/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.866, 867 & 868/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Pratikkumar Shashikantbhai Javiya Ito, Ward-1(1)(1) बनाम B-401, Cosmos Pride, Rajkot. Field Marshal Road Vs. Opp: Speed Well Party Plot Rajkot. Pan :Aiwpj 0996 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri R.D. Lanchandani, Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Lanchandani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 147Section 250

that in these three appeals, similar and identical issues are involved. The Ld. Counsel stated that in these three appeals, there were delay in filing appeals before the ld.CIT(A),by 165 days. The assessee, while filing appeal before the ld. CIT( A), had clearly mentioned, the reasons for delay ... covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Writ Petition in MA No.21 of 2022 dated 10.01.2022, wherein the delay in filing appeals are condoned by the Hon`ble Supreme Court, upto 28.02.2022, and thereafter 90 days period was also available to file the appeal

Kalaiselvi, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 3196/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3196/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt.Kalaiselvi, Income Tax Officer, #1, Kulakarai Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward-8(5) Poonamallee-600 056. Chennai. Pan: Ebcpk-1786-C

For Appellant: Mr.Anandd Babunath, C.A ""For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 250

appeal. The CIT(A) has observed at para 6 of the impugned order though the assessee had submitted certain grounds for the delay in filing appeal vide Column No.15 of Form No.35, she has failed to file formal petition seeking condonation of delay along with affidavit and supporting documentary evidence

James Rajan, Kanchipuram vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 17, Chennai

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

ITA 3325/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3325/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-2015) James Rajan Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of C44, Tvh Park Rozalia, Income Tax, Anand Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 17, Thoraipakkam Oggiam, Chennai. Kanchipuram 600 097. [Pan: Admpj 8746R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 143(3)

perused the material available on record. Considering the substantive period of Covid-19 pandemic and reasons given by the assessee we condone the delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Since, the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merits, accordingly, the impugned order is set aside

Shanti Guru Infra, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Trichy

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

ITA 3239/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3239/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-2017) Shanti Guru Infra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer 53, Chinna Kamala Street, Ward 2(1) Trichy 620 008. Trichy [Pan: Acvfs 2517D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. M. Aswathy, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 143(3)

with the submissions of Ld.DR Ms. M. Awasthy, JCIT however, keeping in mind the reasons given, we are of the view that the delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) is sufficient cause. Hence, we direct the ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing appeal and hear

Kannapiran, Puducherry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Puducherry

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

ITA 3195/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mr. V.Meenakshi Sundar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 250Section 271A

appeal, hence the delay. It was stated by the Ld.AR that CIT(A) has not given any opportunity to explain the reasons for delay in filing appeal before him. It was submitted that assessee’s business had been stopped due to financial difficulties and GST registration of the assessee ... cancelled. The Ld.AR has filed a paper book enclosing therein an affidavit for condonation of delay for filing appeal before the CIT(A), the order of the GST cancelling the registration, declaration of loan account as NPA etc. It was further submitted by the Ld.AR that as regards quantum assessment

Palanisamy Ravisankar, Sankari vs. ITO, Ward-1, Salem

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

ITA 3185/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3185/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Palanisamy Ravisankar Income Tax Officer, Aravankadu, Sanyasipatti Post, Vs. Ward-1(7) Sankari West Salem. Namakkal Dist.-637 303. Pan: Allpr-2541-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.N.V.Lakshmi, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A) - Nfac Order Dated 21.08.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 42 Days In Filing This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal & Also A Supporting Affidavit. 3. On Perusal Of The Aforesaid Reasons In The Condonation Application, We Are Of The View That There Is Sufficient Cause For Belated Filing Of This Appeal & No Latches Can Be Attributed To The Assessee. Hence, We Condone The Delay In Filing This Appeal & Proceed To Dispose Off The Appeal On Merits.

For Appellant: Ms.N.V.Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

lorries by lenders, hence the delay. It was submitted that CIT(A) has not given any opportunity to explain the reasons for delay in filing appeal before him. It was stated that assessee had to face multiple litigation from various creditors and due to mental agony he was unable