← 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

Prakashchand Jain Multi State Co.Operative Credit Society Ltd., Jamner vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1802/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1791, 1801 & 1802/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2014-15 & 2018-19 The Prakashchand Jain Multi V The Income Tax Officer, State Co-Operative Credit S Ward-1(4), Jalgaon. Society Ltd., Mayur Complex, Bajrangpura Road, Jamner, Jalgaon – 424206. Pan: Aaaap4677K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vinay Kawdia – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 10.07.2024, A.Y.2014-15 & A.Y.2018-19 Dated 09.07.2024 Respectively. Since The Issue Involved Is Common & Facts Are Identical, All The Three Appeals

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

Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal and dismissing the appeal in-limine without going into the merits of the case. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case ... disallowed the assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a) of the Act. Ld.AR further submitted that there was a delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) of 145 days. Ld.AR submitted that an elaborate reasoning has been given by the Assessee in Form No.35 and requested

The Prakashchand Jain Multi State Co Operative Society Ltd., Jamner vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1801/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1791, 1801 & 1802/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2014-15 & 2018-19 The Prakashchand Jain Multi V The Income Tax Officer, State Co-Operative Credit S Ward-1(4), Jalgaon. Society Ltd., Mayur Complex, Bajrangpura Road, Jamner, Jalgaon – 424206. Pan: Aaaap4677K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vinay Kawdia – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 10.07.2024, A.Y.2014-15 & A.Y.2018-19 Dated 09.07.2024 Respectively. Since The Issue Involved Is Common & Facts Are Identical, All The Three Appeals

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

Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal and dismissing the appeal in-limine without going into the merits of the case. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case ... disallowed the assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a) of the Act. Ld.AR further submitted that there was a delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) of 145 days. Ld.AR submitted that an elaborate reasoning has been given by the Assessee in Form No.35 and requested

The Prakashchand Jain Multi State Co Operative Credit Society Ltd., Jamner vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Jalgaon, Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1791/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1791, 1801 & 1802/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2014-15 & 2018-19 The Prakashchand Jain Multi V The Income Tax Officer, State Co-Operative Credit S Ward-1(4), Jalgaon. Society Ltd., Mayur Complex, Bajrangpura Road, Jamner, Jalgaon – 424206. Pan: Aaaap4677K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vinay Kawdia – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 10.07.2024, A.Y.2014-15 & A.Y.2018-19 Dated 09.07.2024 Respectively. Since The Issue Involved Is Common & Facts Are Identical, All The Three Appeals

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

Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal and dismissing the appeal in-limine without going into the merits of the case. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case ... disallowed the assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a) of the Act. Ld.AR further submitted that there was a delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) of 145 days. Ld.AR submitted that an elaborate reasoning has been given by the Assessee in Form No.35 and requested

Sri. Srusti Assciates, Bellary vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bellary

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

ITA 1856/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chinmay Anand Jain, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 114Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

court’s permission. In view of this, the assessee could not produce entire documents to the satisfaction of the AO and there was delay in filing appeal before the FAA. The ld. AR further submitted Page 4 of 5 that the assessee has good case on merits and each ... Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471, we condone the delay in filing appeal before the FAA and remit back the issues to the file of CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration and decision as per law. The assessee

Sri Projects, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Pune

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

ITA 1757/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 250Section 50

convinced that there was a reasonable and sufficient cause 3 for delay. Hence, we direct the ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing appeal. Accordingly, the order of ld.CIT(A) is set-aside to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing

Twinkle Star Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4169/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2012-13 Twinkle Star Assistant Director Of Cooperative Housing Income Tax Society Limited Cpc, Ghatla Village, Bengaluru- 560500. Vs. Chembur Maharashtra- 400071. Pan: Aaaat1535A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. P. Jayaraman
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

submissions made as above. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merit on the ground of delay in filing appeal whereas, the Ld. AO neither rejected nor accepted the application made by the assessee for rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. Thus, considering

Twinkle Star Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4168/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2013-14 Twinkle Star Assistant Director Of Cooperative Housing Income Tax Society Limited Cpc, Ghatla Village, Bengaluru- 560500. Vs. Chembur Maharashtra- 400071. Pan: Aaaat1535A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. P. Jayaraman
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

submissions made as above. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merit on the ground of delay in filing appeal whereas, the Ld. AO neither rejected nor accepted the application made by the assessee for rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. Thus, considering

Twinkle Star Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4166/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2014-15 Twinkle Star Assistant Director Of Cooperative Housing Income Tax Society Limited Cpc, Ghatla Village, Bengaluru- 560500. Vs. Chembur Maharashtra- 400071. Pan: Aaaat1535A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. P. Jayaraman
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

submissions made as above. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue on meriton the ground of delay in filing appeal whereas, the Ld. AO neither rejected nor accepted the application made by the assessee for rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. Thus, considering

S T Co-Operative Credit Society, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2136/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2136/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 S T Co-Operative Credit V The Income Tax Officer, Society, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Swargate S T Depo, Veer Savarkar Nagar, Swargate Bus Stand, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aabas6856L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 09.08.2024 For A.Y.2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 108 Days In Filing The Appeal Without Appreciating That The Said Delay Was Due To Reasonable Cause As Explained In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Filed Before Cit(A) & Therefore, The Said Delay Ought To Have Been Condoned In The Interest Of Justice & The Appeal Should Have Been Adjudicated On Merits. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That The Deduction U/S 80P Was Allowable In Respect Of Interest Earned From Deposits Made By Cooperative Banks As Consistently Held By Honorable

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

held by Honorable ITAT, Pune and the considerations of merits, should not have been altogether ignored, while adjudicating the aspect of condonation of delay in filing appeal and hence, the appeal ought to have been allowed after condoning the delay 3. The appellant craves, leave to add, alter, amend

Mayur Balasaheb Shinde, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Pune

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

ITA 1504/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1504/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mayur Balasaheb Shinde, V The Income Tax Officer, 1, Anil Apartment, Baner S Ward-2(1), Pune. Residency, Baner Road, Near Sakal Nagar, Aunch, Ganeshkind, Pune – 411007. Pan: Drbps7371R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 31.10.2023 For A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld Assessing Officer Is Erred In Considering The Cash Deposited Of Rs.10,46,000/- As Unexplained Money U/S 69A R.W.S 115Bbe. 2. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld Assessing Officer Is Erred In Treating Agricultural Income Of Rs.13,63,625/- As Income From Other Sources. 3. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Assessing Officer Is Erred In Making An Addition On Account Of Cash Deposited Whereas Same Is Already Considered In Net Profit & In Gross Total Income. This Addition Is Resulting As A Double Taxation. 4. The Appellant Craves The Permission To Add, Amend, Modify, Revise, Substitute, Delete Or Alter Any/All Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal If Deemed Necessary At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” Submission Of Ld.Authorised Representative(Ld.Ar) : 2. Ld.Ar Submitted That There Was Delay In Filing Appeal Before The Itat. Ld.Ar Filed Copy Of Affidavit Of The Assessee Which Explains The Reasons For Delay.

Section 250Section 69A

appeal if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Submission of ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) : 2. Ld.AR submitted that there was delay in filing appeal before the ITAT. Ld.AR filed copy of affidavit of the assessee which explains the reasons for delay. 2.1 The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR ... assessee. We are of the opinion that there was sufficient reason for delay. Therefore, in the interest of the justice, we condone the Delay in filing appeal before the ITAT. 4.1 It is observed from the order of the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] that the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] did not decide

Cine Corporation of India, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 405/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Shikha LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

Assessment order under section 147 r/w section 144B of the Act with a delay of seven days. An application for condonation of delay in filing appeal was furnished before learned CIT(A) along with appeal memo explaining that though the date of order was 22/03/2022, however, the same was effectively

Sachin Ramesh Holey, Wardha vs. ITO Ward 1, Wardha

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

ITA 180/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

authorities below. We find that the learned CIT(A) has disposed off appeals filed by the assessee on technical grounds without condoning delay in filing appeals, although, the assessee has filed petition for ITA No. 3495 to 3504/Chny/2019 condonation of delay. We find that the issue involved in the present

Sachin Ramesh Holey, Wardha vs. ITO Ward 1, Wardha

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

ITA 179/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

authorities below. We find that the learned CIT(A) has disposed off appeals filed by the assessee on technical grounds without condoning delay in filing appeals, although, the assessee has filed petition for ITA No. 3495 to 3504/Chny/2019 condonation of delay. We find that the issue involved in the present

Sachin Ramesh Holey, Wardha vs. ITO Ward 1, Wardha

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

ITA 178/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

authorities below. We find that the learned CIT(A) has disposed off appeals filed by the assessee on technical grounds without condoning delay in filing appeals, although, the assessee has filed petition for ITA No. 3495 to 3504/Chny/2019 condonation of delay. We find that the issue involved in the present

Sachin Ramesh Holey, Wardha vs. ITO Ward 1, Wardha

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

ITA 177/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

authorities below. We find that the learned CIT(A) has disposed off appeals filed by the assessee on technical grounds without condoning delay in filing appeals, although, the assessee has filed petition for ITA No. 3495 to 3504/Chny/2019 condonation of delay. We find that the issue involved in the present

Sachin Ramesh Holey, Wardha vs. ITO Ward 1, Wardha

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

ITA 176/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

authorities below. We find that the learned CIT(A) has disposed off appeals filed by the assessee on technical grounds without condoning delay in filing appeals, although, the assessee has filed petition for ITA No. 3495 to 3504/Chny/2019 condonation of delay. We find that the issue involved in the present

Sachin Ramesh Holey, Wardha vs. ITO Ward 1, Wardha

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

ITA 175/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

authorities below. We find that the learned CIT(A) has disposed off appeals filed by the assessee on technical grounds without condoning delay in filing appeals, although, the assessee has filed petition for ITA No. 3495 to 3504/Chny/2019 condonation of delay. We find that the issue involved in the present

Sachin Ramesh Holey, Wardha vs. ITO Ward 1, Wardha

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

ITA 174/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

authorities below. We find that the learned CIT(A) has disposed off appeals filed by the assessee on technical grounds without condoning delay in filing appeals, although, the assessee has filed petition for ITA No. 3495 to 3504/Chny/2019 condonation of delay. We find that the issue involved in the present

Sachin Ramesh Holey, Wardha vs. ITO Ward 1, Wardha

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

ITA 173/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

authorities below. We find that the learned CIT(A) has disposed off appeals filed by the assessee on technical grounds without condoning delay in filing appeals, although, the assessee has filed petition for ITA No. 3495 to 3504/Chny/2019 condonation of delay. We find that the issue involved in the present

ACIT, Circle-34, Kolkata vs. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

ITA 999/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.

Section 148A

Some delay at every level is also attributable to time barring proceedings u/s 148A. In view of aforesaid genuine reasons the delay in filing appeal may kindly be condoned.” Considering the reasons given in the said application, these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 2. The appellant is a local authority