← 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

Shri Akhil Bhartiya Samarth Jain Shravak Sangh, Nashik vs. Exemption Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 649/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

Aggrieved by the said order passed dated 27/11/2022, appellant has filed an appeal before MITAT, Pune bench. B. Computation of delay in filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT The appellant has filed the appeal before the Honorable ITAT, Pune Bench on 01/04/2024. In all this process, a delay ... follows: Date of receipt of order - 28/11/2022 Last date for filing appeal before your good self - 25/01/2023 Date of filing appeal - 01/04/2024 -------------------- Delay in filing appeal - 432 days C. Reasons for delay in filing an appeal within stipulated timelines: 1. Multiple tabs on the E-filing portal lead to confusion

Gali Lakshmi Aruna, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1184/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sripada M, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 56

appeal even after submitting sufficient cause for such delay. Ground No II The learned CIT(Appeals) have erred by not condoning the delay in filing appeal merely on account of not providing an affidavit by the appellant. Ground No III The learned CIT(Appeals) have erred by not adjudicating

Purvish Mukesh Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

ITA 5522/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: The Cit (Appeals) Was Delayed By 25 Days Due To Reasons Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. Assessment Year: 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri Ashutosh AngreFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani
Section 147Section 69Section 69B

granted opportunity to the Appellant to explain the reasons, the Appellant would have been able present his case for condoning delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal by filing affidavit and supporting documents. Given the period of delay involved in the present case was only 25 days, we find merit ... affidavit explaining the reasons for delay and the supporting documents. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the aforesaid application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal as per law after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and thereafter, adjudicate the grounds raised by the Assessee

Little Scholars Academy, Amroha vs. ACIT, Central, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1971/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Livros Publishing Pvt. Ward-1(2)(4). Ltd., 37, Chippi Tank, Meerut (U.P) Meerut Pan: Aabcl7313B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, Adv. & Shri AnkitFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

Date of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date of pronouncement: 08.10.2025 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The application for condonation of delay in filing appeal and appeal filed by Revenue are against order dated 28.08.2020 of Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Meerut (hereinafter referred

Malegaon Mahanagar Palika Karmchari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer - 1 Malegaon, Malegaon, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2502/PUN/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

grounds of appeal.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. The ld.AR for the Assessee filed a paper book. Ld.AR submitted that there has been a delay in filing appeal before Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench. Ld.AR took us through the affidavit of the Chairman of the Assessee Society. Ld.AR submitted that Assessee ... Chartered Accountant who is a Senior Citizen of 60 years old, we are convinced that there was reasonable sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal before this Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench. It is also noted that ld.DR has no objection in condoning the delay. We are of the opinion

Veediyarasampalayam Powerloom Weavers Co-Op Production and Sales Society Ltd., Namakkal vs. ITO, TDS Ward, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3020/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar, JCIT
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

assessee society filed appeals before the CIT(A) belatedly. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing appeals for AYs 2013-14 to 2014-15. 6. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the CIT(A) dismissing the appeals, the assessee has filed ... comes under the expression “sufficient cause” and hence, we are of the considered view that learned CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeals. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing appeal before learned CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the learned

Veediyarasampalayam Powerloom Weavers Co-Op Production and Sales Society Ltd., Namakkal vs. ITO, TDS Ward, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3019/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar, JCIT
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

assessee society filed appeals before the CIT(A) belatedly. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing appeals for AYs 2013-14 to 2014-15. 6. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the CIT(A) dismissing the appeals, the assessee has filed ... comes under the expression “sufficient cause” and hence, we are of the considered view that learned CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeals. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing appeal before learned CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the learned

Veediyarasampalayam Powerloom Weavers Co-Op Production and Sales Society Ltd., Namakkal vs. ITO, TDS Ward, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3018/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar, JCIT
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

assessee society filed appeals before the CIT(A) belatedly. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing appeals for AYs 2013-14 to 2014-15. 6. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the CIT(A) dismissing the appeals, the assessee has filed ... comes under the expression “sufficient cause” and hence, we are of the considered view that learned CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeals. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing appeal before learned CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the learned

Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Kanchipuram vs. ITO Non Corp Ward 22(6), Tambaram

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2863/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2860, 2861, 2862 & 2863/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 50A, 8Th Street, Non Corp Ward 22(6) Vembuliamman Koil Street, Tambaram. Selaiyur, Kanchipuram 600 073. Chennai. [Pan: Aacpa 1677R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Even Date 28.10.2024 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen & Retired Govt. Employee Who Is Earning Mere Pension Income & Small Salary Income. The Assessee Is Incapable Of Understanding & Using The Income Tax Portal To Submit

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, IRS, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that no opportunity was given by the ld.CIT(A) to address the issue of delay in filing appeal or rectify such defect in the Form 35, if any. Per contra, the ld. DR, Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, JCIT strongly supported the orders ... lower authorities and find that the ld.CIT(A) nowhere has given specific notice or opportunity to the assessee explain the reasons for delay in filing appeals. Section 249(3) of the Act reads as under: ‘’The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals)] may, admit an appeal after the expiration

Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Kanchipuram vs. ITO Non Corp Ward 22(6), Tambaram

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2862/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2860, 2861, 2862 & 2863/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 50A, 8Th Street, Non Corp Ward 22(6) Vembuliamman Koil Street, Tambaram. Selaiyur, Kanchipuram 600 073. Chennai. [Pan: Aacpa 1677R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Even Date 28.10.2024 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen & Retired Govt. Employee Who Is Earning Mere Pension Income & Small Salary Income. The Assessee Is Incapable Of Understanding & Using The Income Tax Portal To Submit

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, IRS, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that no opportunity was given by the ld.CIT(A) to address the issue of delay in filing appeal or rectify such defect in the Form 35, if any. Per contra, the ld. DR, Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, JCIT strongly supported the orders ... lower authorities and find that the ld.CIT(A) nowhere has given specific notice or opportunity to the assessee explain the reasons for delay in filing appeals. Section 249(3) of the Act reads as under: ‘’The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals)] may, admit an appeal after the expiration

Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Kanchipuram vs. ITO Non Corp Ward 22(6), Tambaram

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2861/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2860, 2861, 2862 & 2863/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 50A, 8Th Street, Non Corp Ward 22(6) Vembuliamman Koil Street, Tambaram. Selaiyur, Kanchipuram 600 073. Chennai. [Pan: Aacpa 1677R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Even Date 28.10.2024 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen & Retired Govt. Employee Who Is Earning Mere Pension Income & Small Salary Income. The Assessee Is Incapable Of Understanding & Using The Income Tax Portal To Submit

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, IRS, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that no opportunity was given by the ld.CIT(A) to address the issue of delay in filing appeal or rectify such defect in the Form 35, if any. Per contra, the ld. DR, Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, JCIT strongly supported the orders ... lower authorities and find that the ld.CIT(A) nowhere has given specific notice or opportunity to the assessee explain the reasons for delay in filing appeals. Section 249(3) of the Act reads as under: ‘’The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals)] may, admit an appeal after the expiration

Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Kanchipuram vs. ITO Non Corp Ward 22(6), Tambaram

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2860/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2860, 2861, 2862 & 2863/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 50A, 8Th Street, Non Corp Ward 22(6) Vembuliamman Koil Street, Tambaram. Selaiyur, Kanchipuram 600 073. Chennai. [Pan: Aacpa 1677R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Even Date 28.10.2024 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen & Retired Govt. Employee Who Is Earning Mere Pension Income & Small Salary Income. The Assessee Is Incapable Of Understanding & Using The Income Tax Portal To Submit

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, IRS, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that no opportunity was given by the ld.CIT(A) to address the issue of delay in filing appeal or rectify such defect in the Form 35, if any. Per contra, the ld. DR, Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, JCIT strongly supported the orders ... lower authorities and find that the ld.CIT(A) nowhere has given specific notice or opportunity to the assessee explain the reasons for delay in filing appeals. Section 249(3) of the Act reads as under: ‘’The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals)] may, admit an appeal after the expiration

Ghanshyam K Kevadiya HUF, Surat vs. ITO-1(3)(6), Surat

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is

ITA 1031/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsth Sitet G./Ita Nos.1030 & 1031/Srt/2024 (Ay 2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

submits that there is delay of 256 days in both the appeals before the tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that delay in filing appeals are neither intentional nor deliberate. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that first appeal before Id CIT(A) was filed ... assessee has filed affidavit of assessee for condoning the delay before Tribunal. The Id AR of the assessee submits that there is no delay in filing appeals from the date of knowledge. The assessee is not going to be benefitted in filing appeal belatedly. The assessee has a good case

Gahnshyam K Kevadiya HUF, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(6), Surat

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is

ITA 1030/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsth Sitet G./Ita Nos.1030 & 1031/Srt/2024 (Ay 2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

submits that there is delay of 256 days in both the appeals before the tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that delay in filing appeals are neither intentional nor deliberate. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that first appeal before Id CIT(A) was filed ... assessee has filed affidavit of assessee for condoning the delay before Tribunal. The Id AR of the assessee submits that there is no delay in filing appeals from the date of knowledge. The assessee is not going to be benefitted in filing appeal belatedly. The assessee has a good case

Palo Alto Networks (India) Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2073/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana & Ms. Divya Motwani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Venktesh V, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 24BSection 250Section 43B

Appellant, bad in law and against the principles of natural justice, thus liable to be quashed. B. Rejection of petition for condonation of delay in filing appeal by Ld. CIT(A) [being Appeal no. ADDL/JCIT (A)-cg MIJMBAI/iooi9/2021-221: 9, 1. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case ... erred in rejecting the petition for condonation of delay in filing appeal against the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act dated March 16, 2023 ('the Intimation'), despite the fact that the Appellant demonstrated sufficient cause for non- filing of the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation

Shree Sai Alang House, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 906/SRT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.906/Srt/2024 (Ay 2022-23) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Sai Alang House Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), 13-15, Khodal Chhaya Society, Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, बनाम Surat Kamrej Road, Opp. Majura Gate, Vs Shyamdham Mandir, Surat-395 001 Surat-394 185 [Pan : Abefs 8896 D] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals ... visited his consultant’s office on 31.07.2024, his consultant checked the ITBA portal and came to know about the passing assessment order. Therefore, delay in filing appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. The Ld.CIT(A) despite recording such fact has not condoned the delay and resultantly appeal was dismissed

Pareshbhai Khodabhai Godhani, Surat vs. NFAC, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat

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

ITA 153/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Pareshbhai Khodabhai Godhani, I.T.O., 121, 122, Ishwarkrupa Society, B/H. Ward 2(3)(3), Vs. Laxman Nagar Society, Laxman Nagar, Aayakar Bhavan, Punagam Road, Punagam, Surat. Surat-394210 (Gujarat) Pan No. Anepg 8437 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 144Section 254(1)Section 69A

already filed application for condonation of delay in the form of affidavit of assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The impugned order was not served upon the assessee through e-mail address, which was provided in Form ... that the appeal has already been dismissed vide order dated 28/11/2023. The assessee immediately filed appeal before this Tribunal. Though, there is no delay in filing appeal from the date of knowledge of impugned order, yet for abandon caution, the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. The delay

Harendrasinh Anupsinh Mahida, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(2), Surat

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

ITA 1092/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1092/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Hybrid Processing Hearing) Harendrsinh Anupsinh Mahida Income Tax Officer, Limda Faliyu, At Gothan Gothan Ward-2(3)(2), Surat, बनाम Sayan Road, Tal; Olpad, Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Vs Surat-394 130 Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, [Pan : Bhipm 0689 M] Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 144Section 254(1)

However, Ld.CIT(A) dismissed appeal of assessee by not considering such fact. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that delay in filing appeal was neither deliberated nor intentional rather the assessee was not aware about the passing the assessment order. The assessment order, itself is under section ... added entire sale consideration as long term capital gain. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer by not condoning the delay in filing appeal. We find that the assessee categorically contended in the facts mentioned in Form-35 that assessment order was not served upon the assessee

Madhuben Harkishandas Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward2(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1085/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1085/Srt/2024 (Ay 2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Madhuben Harkishandas Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward- 65, Vav Faliyu, Village-Sandhiyer, 2(2)(1), Surat, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम Surat-394 130 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 Vs [Pan : Azfpp 1116 Q] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 254(1)Section 55A

Thus, there is delay of 88 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the situation beyond the control of assessee. The husband of assessee was seriously ill since couple ... 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 vehemently argued that the assessee as well as her husband are senior citizen and were

M/S Little Kanhaya Knitwears, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana

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

ITA 724/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 724/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018019 M/S Little Kanhya Vs. The Dcit बनाम Central Circle-3, Knitwears, Ludhiana Ram Gali, Madhpuri-1, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaefl0415E अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 36Section 40

Little Kanhya Knitwears, Ludhiana 7 “As per Column no. 14 of Form 35 of the appellant has mentioned that there is no delay in filing appeal. Also no reason was given for delay in filing appeal. No request for condonation was filed by the appellant. It is for the appellant