← 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

Sri. Suresha Chikkajala Ramakrishnappa, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 866/BANG/2024[2013-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2013-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 249

assessee which are reproduced in his order regarding condonation of delay and relying on various judgments, he did not condone the delay in filing appeal and dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. Aggrieved from the said order, the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT ... relied on the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that assessee has not explained properly the reasons for condoning delay in filing appeal to the satisfaction of the CIT(A) and objected for remitting the matter again before the CIT(A). The reasons stated are very casual reasons

Vinit Vijay Kumar, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, Mumbai (Now DCIT, Circle 17(1), Mumbai)

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

ITA 552/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vinit Vijay Kumar, Acit, Central Circle-13, (Now 35 Shreyas, 180 Madam Cama Dcit, Circle 17(1), Mumbai), Vs. Road, Nariman Point, G Block Bkc, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020. Complex, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacpv 9310 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Dharmesh Shah
Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 250

support of its claim before the assessee did not file any evidence in support of its claim before the Ld. CIT(A) that delay in filing appeal Ld. CIT(A) that delay in filing appeal was attributable to the earlier attributable to the earlier counsel. The assessee has neither filed

The Salestax Employees Co.Op. Credit Society Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 612/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 16-10-2023 In Din

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep G Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 253(3)

16th December 2023 , but has been filed on 04.04.2024 belatedly by 111 days beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3). The reason for delay in filing appeal with ITAT is the pendency of rectification application filed by the assessee u/s 154 with ld. CIT(A). Thus the claim

Regal Education Society, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Kolhapur

In the result, three appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 697/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.695, 696 & 697/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2020-21 Regal Education Society, The Income Tax 104, Swami Complex, V Officer(Exemptions), Bazarpeth, Chiplun, Ratnagiri, S Kolhapur. Maharashtra – 415605. Pan: Aabtr5097B Appellant Respondent Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), All Dated 04.03.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Act For A.Y.2018-19 & A.Y.2020-21. The Assessee In Ita No.695/Pun/2024 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Due To Delay In Filing Without Considering The Case On Merits.

Section 10Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 250Section 270A

ld.CIT(A) had dismissed appeal of the assessee on account of delay. 3.1 In ITA No.695/PUN/2024 and ITA No.696/PUN/2024 there was a delay in filing appeal before ld.CIT(A) of 379 days after excluding the Covid-19 period. 3.2 There is a delay of 179 days before ld.CIT

Regal Education Society, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Kolhapur

In the result, three appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 696/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.695, 696 & 697/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2020-21 Regal Education Society, The Income Tax 104, Swami Complex, V Officer(Exemptions), Bazarpeth, Chiplun, Ratnagiri, S Kolhapur. Maharashtra – 415605. Pan: Aabtr5097B Appellant Respondent Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), All Dated 04.03.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Act For A.Y.2018-19 & A.Y.2020-21. The Assessee In Ita No.695/Pun/2024 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Due To Delay In Filing Without Considering The Case On Merits.

Section 10Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 250Section 270A

ld.CIT(A) had dismissed appeal of the assessee on account of delay. 3.1 In ITA No.695/PUN/2024 and ITA No.696/PUN/2024 there was a delay in filing appeal before ld.CIT(A) of 379 days after excluding the Covid-19 period. 3.2 There is a delay of 179 days before ld.CIT

Regal Education Society, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Kolhapur

In the result, three appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 695/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.695, 696 & 697/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2020-21 Regal Education Society, The Income Tax 104, Swami Complex, V Officer(Exemptions), Bazarpeth, Chiplun, Ratnagiri, S Kolhapur. Maharashtra – 415605. Pan: Aabtr5097B Appellant Respondent Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), All Dated 04.03.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Act For A.Y.2018-19 & A.Y.2020-21. The Assessee In Ita No.695/Pun/2024 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Due To Delay In Filing Without Considering The Case On Merits.

Section 10Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 250Section 270A

ld.CIT(A) had dismissed appeal of the assessee on account of delay. 3.1 In ITA No.695/PUN/2024 and ITA No.696/PUN/2024 there was a delay in filing appeal before ld.CIT(A) of 379 days after excluding the Covid-19 period. 3.2 There is a delay of 179 days before ld.CIT

Aman Chambers Premises Co-Op Soc Ltd, Charni Road Mumbai vs. The Ass. Director of Income Tax Bengaluru, Bengaluru

In the result, ITA No. 2077/MUM/2024, ITA No

ITA 2080/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri.Narendra Kumar Billatya & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 249(2)Section 250

prescribe time-limit within which the appeal is to be filed by the appellant. In the instant case there is delay in filing appeal, in respect to the same, appellant assesse has given explanation in the col. no. 15 to Form 35 that: “The outbreak of the COVID 19 pandemic

Aman Chambers Premises Co-Op Soc. Ltd., Charni Road Mumbai vs. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, ITA No. 2077/MUM/2024, ITA No

ITA 2078/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri.Narendra Kumar Billatya & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 249(2)Section 250

prescribe time-limit within which the appeal is to be filed by the appellant. In the instant case there is delay in filing appeal, in respect to the same, appellant assesse has given explanation in the col. no. 15 to Form 35 that: “The outbreak of the COVID 19 pandemic

Aman Chambers Premises Co-Op Soc Ltd., Charni Road Mumbai vs. The Assitant Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, ITA No. 2077/MUM/2024, ITA No

ITA 2077/MUM/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri.Narendra Kumar Billatya & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 249(2)Section 250

prescribe time-limit within which the appeal is to be filed by the appellant. In the instant case there is delay in filing appeal, in respect to the same, appellant assesse has given explanation in the col. no. 15 to Form 35 that: “The outbreak of the COVID 19 pandemic

Tushar Jayantilal Lakhani, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4709/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh: A.Y : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Tushar J. LakhaniFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

subsequently and 2 Tushar Jayantilal Lakhani fearing levy of penalty, he took steps to file the appeal. Accordingly, it was submitted that the delay in filing appeal was neither intentional nor wanton one. Accordingly, it is prayed that the bench may take a lenient view and admit the appeal

Radha Maheshwari, Ujjain vs. Income Tax Officer, Dewas

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

ITA 517/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniradha Maheshwari Ito 4 Bahadurganj, Khidwdkar Dewas Marg Behind Civi Hospital Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Azcpm1050B Assessee By Ms. Sonam Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .07.2024

Section 68

appeal on 11.02.2019, wherein there is a delay of 30 days. The appellant in form no.35 has stated that: 14 Whether there is delay in filing appeal Yes 15 It reply to 14 is Yes, enter the grounds for As per letter attached condonation of delay(not exceeding 500 words

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-6(1)(1) Bangalore, Koramangala, Bengaluru vs. Shri Bommai Sommappa Basavaraj, Bangalore

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed, as not pressed

ITA 922/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 250(4)

prayed that there is a short delay to be condoned since it was unintentional. 4. We have heard both the parties on delay in filing appeals before this Tribunal. There was short delay of 37 days in filing the appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and 38 days for Assessment

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-6(1)(1) Bangalore, Koramangala, Bengaluru vs. Shri Bommai Sommappa Basavaraj, Bangalore

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed, as not pressed

ITA 914/BANG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 250(4)

prayed that there is a short delay to be condoned since it was unintentional. 4. We have heard both the parties on delay in filing appeals before this Tribunal. There was short delay of 37 days in filing the appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 and 38 days for Assessment

M/S Ronit Mercantile Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 13(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 385/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Ronit Mercantile Private Ito, Ward 13(3)(2), Limited Aaykar Bhavan A-101, Humgra Park Pathanwadi Vs. Road, Malad (East), Opp Masid Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400 097 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcr9382C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

illness of the advocate of the assessee. 06. The ld DR was heard on merits as well as on condonation of delay in filing appeal. 07. On perusal of the affidavit, we find that by filing the appeal late, the assessee does not gain anything and the reasons shown

Country Side Agriculture Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional, Joint, Deputy, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 2904/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Blecountry Side Agriculture Private Addl. Jt./Dy./Asst. Cit, Limited, Nfac, Delhi. Pandey House, A Wing, Ground Floor, Cumballa Hill Hospital, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai - 400 036. Pan Aadcc2704R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri H M Bhatt (Sr. DR)

assessment year 2014-15. 2. The Ld A.R submitted that Ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay in filing appeal before him. He submitted that the assessee is a Private limited company and it has been struck off from the register

Shree Krishna Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exm Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, an appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 2455/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja N. PawarFor Respondent: ShriP.D. Choughule (All.CIT) SR DR
Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

request for"Condonation of delay but in column no 14 of Form 35 where the appellant is required to furnish "Whether there is delay in filing appeal" it has stated "No". Further, now as the appeal has been filed against rectification order u/s |54, if date of order

Gowrin Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ITO Exemptions Ward 1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1368/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1367 & 1368/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-2019 & 2019-2020) M/S. Gowrin Charitable Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.36/40, Lazarus Church Road, (Exemption) Mandavelipakkam, Ward 1, Rajaannamalaipuram, Chennai. Chennai 600 028. [Pan: Aabtg 1312N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Sudersan, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri V.Justin, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Sudersan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V.Justin, IRS, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(3)

appeal before us. 5. At the outset, Ld.AR for the appellant submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the reasons given for delay in filing appeals and prayed that delay in filing the appeals be condoned and appeal be heard on merits after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing ... have heard the both parties and perused the impugned order. Assessee before the ld.CIT(A) has given the following reasons for the delay in filing appeals: ’4.6 The appellant has submitted the following for justifying the said delay as under:- The Trustees of the Appellant does not have any knowledge

Gowrin Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ITO Exemptions Ward 1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1367/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1367 & 1368/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-2019 & 2019-2020) M/S. Gowrin Charitable Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.36/40, Lazarus Church Road, (Exemption) Mandavelipakkam, Ward 1, Rajaannamalaipuram, Chennai. Chennai 600 028. [Pan: Aabtg 1312N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Sudersan, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri V.Justin, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Sudersan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V.Justin, IRS, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(3)

appeal before us. 5. At the outset, Ld.AR for the appellant submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the reasons given for delay in filing appeals and prayed that delay in filing the appeals be condoned and appeal be heard on merits after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing ... have heard the both parties and perused the impugned order. Assessee before the ld.CIT(A) has given the following reasons for the delay in filing appeals: ’4.6 The appellant has submitted the following for justifying the said delay as under:- The Trustees of the Appellant does not have any knowledge

Mohammad Lal Pasha, Warangal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 496/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Mookambikeyan, Sr.A.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 69

appeals are time barred by 21 days. The parties were heard on delay in filing of appeals and after hearing both sides, the delay in filing appeals is condoned. 2.1 The brief facts of the case are that, information was received from Police Authorities, Sironcha Police Station, Gadchiroli District that

Arif Mohammad, Warangal vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 495/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Mookambikeyan, Sr.A.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 69

appeals are time barred by 21 days. The parties were heard on delay in filing of appeals and after hearing both sides, the delay in filing appeals is condoned. 2.1 The brief facts of the case are that, information was received from Police Authorities, Sironcha Police Station, Gadchiroli District that