← 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

Meenaba Divyavirsinhji Alias Digvijaysinhji Jadeja, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

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

ITA 1693/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2019-20 Meenaba Divyavirsinhji Alias Deputy Commissioner Of Digvijaysinhji Jadeja Income Tax, Circle-1, Diyanirman House, Bhavnagar - 364002 Chitranjan Chowk, Vs. Bhavnagar - 364001 [Pan – Aespj 0763 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mohit Balani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.01.2026 O R D E R

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 270ASection 271ASection 69

assessee was certainly negligent and we are not convinced with the explanation for non- compliance before the AO and also the delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A). We, therefore, deem it proper to impose a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the assessee which should be paid

Mahathi Engineering Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 802/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

gone through orders of the authorities below along with judicial decisions cited by both the parties. The Tribunal has powers to condone the delay in filing appeal after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub section (3) or sub- section (4) of section 253 of the Income ... under the Act, or as explained by the various courts and hence, we reject the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing appeal.” 10. Insofar as the case law relied upon by the assessee in the cae of Hon'ble Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan

Sreemath Khadri Lakhsmi Narasimhaswamy Devasthanam, Kadiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Tirupati

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1479/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1477, 1478 & 1479/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2016-2017, 2022-2023 & 2023-2024 Sreemath Khadri Lakhsmi The Income Tax Officer, Narasimhaswamy Vs. Exemption Ward, Devasthanam, Kadiri Tirupati – 517 507. Andhra Pradesh. Pin – 515 591. Pan Aaajs5401M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pv Raghavendra Kumar राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA PV Raghavendra KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

learned CIT-DR, on the other hand strongly opposed for condonation of delay and submitted that, the assessee could not explain reasons for delay in filing appeals before the learned CIT(A) with ‘sufficient cause’ and, therefore, the learned CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeals of the assessee

Sreemath Khadiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Kadiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Tirupati

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1478/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA PV Raghavendra KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

learned CIT-DR, on the other hand strongly opposed for condonation of delay and submitted that, the assessee could not explain reasons for delay in filing appeals before the learned CIT(A) with ‘sufficient cause’ and, therefore, the learned CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeals of the assessee

Sreemath Khadri Lakhsmi Narasimha Swamydevasthanam, Kadiri vs. ITO., Exemption Ward, Tirupati

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1477/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1477, 1478 & 1479/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2016-2017, 2022-2023 & 2023-2024 Sreemath Khadri Lakhsmi The Income Tax Officer, Narasimhaswamy Vs. Exemption Ward, Devasthanam, Kadiri Tirupati – 517 507. Andhra Pradesh. Pin – 515 591. Pan Aaajs5401M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pv Raghavendra Kumar राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA PV Raghavendra KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

learned CIT-DR, on the other hand strongly opposed for condonation of delay and submitted that, the assessee could not explain reasons for delay in filing appeals before the learned CIT(A) with ‘sufficient cause’ and, therefore, the learned CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeals of the assessee

Devang Ravishankar Pandya, Mehsana, Gujarat vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as non-maintainable

ITA 1707/AHD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR
Section 140Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No

Parantap Charitable Trust, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward- Exemption, Vadodara

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

ITA 1697/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1697/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम Parantap Charitable Trust Income Tax Officer 421, Vraj Siddhi Tower, Ward – Exemption, / Khanderao Market Char Vadodara Vs. Rasta, Rajmahal Road, Vadodara - 390001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aactp0976E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Rushin Patel, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. Dr 07/01/2026 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 O R D E R The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As “Nfac”), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 15.06.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) & Relates To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

uploaded on the income tax portal by the Id. ΑΟ. 5. It is because of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, that, the delay in filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT has taken place. It may kindly be appreciated that, there was no mala fide intention in delaying

Sulbha Chakrapani Sarvade, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Sangli

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

ITA 1619/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1619/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Umesh MaliFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 147Section 44Section 69A

filing account my CA came to know about all these notices and assessment orders. Due to all These Problems There is delay in filing appeal 68 days. Due to above mentioned facts there is delay in filing appeal before Hon. ITAT 4. I had no intention to delay the filing

Seema Pappu Yadav, Andheri West vs. Income Tax Officer, Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5483/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 144Section 148Section 250

registry informed that the appeal was filed with a delay of 362 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condoning the delay in filing appeal. The Ld.DR had made no strong objection in condoning the delay. We considered that there is sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal before ... Bench. The Ld. DR has not made any strong objection for condoning the delay in filing appeal. So, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the matter is taken for adjudication. 3. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on record

M/S. Sai Builders and Developers, Vashi, Navi Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-27, Vashi, Navi Mumbai

ITA 4520/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethm/S Sai Builders & Developers. B12, Ashiana, Plot No.15, Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan/Gir No: Abbfs0092C (Appellant) Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-27. It-Office, Vashi Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai-400703. (Respondent) Appellant By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Shri Shashank Mehta Shri Vivek Perampurna, Cit-Dr 07.01.2026 28.01.2026 Order Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘Act') By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mumbai-27 Dated 16.03.2025 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Principal Cit, Mumbai-27 Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Holding That The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify, Amend Or Substitute All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal." 1

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 263

days. 4. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed affidavit of the partner of the assessee firm praying for condonation of delay in filing appeal against the order of PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. In the affidavit, the chronology of the events has been mentioned stating that order ... filing appeal by the assessee before the ITAT. The assessee has not been able to give any cogent reason for such inordinate delay in filing appeal before ITAT. That the delay was purely technical in nature and was not due to any deliberate intention of the assessee cannot

Mfar Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 938/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sudhindra B.R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 194JSection 250

noted by the Registry. 6. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee drew our attention to a petition for condonation of delay in filing appeal dated 18/04/2025 along with an affidavit in original sworn before the Advocate & Notary Public on the same day which are reproduced below for ease ... Compound, 80 Feet Road, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 034, Karnataka, India AABCM3803F 2021-22 Permanent Account Number Assessment Year PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. That the Appellant is a Private Limited Company, duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged

Vineetsingh Gulabsingh Rore, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 868/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 253(5)Section 263Section 69

that the facts in the case of Ravi Dipakbhai Shah (supra) were identical to that in the present case wherein the assessee had delayed in filing appeal to the ITAT against the order passed u/s.263 of the Act, attributing the cause for the delay being wrong advice given ... difference whether the litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the gross delay in filing appeals. He pointed out that the Hon’ble Apex Court held that if the litigant chooses to approach the court long after the lapse

Masudha Begam, Perambalur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Trichy

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

ITA 3831/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri George George K & Before Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr.P.Venkatesan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

medical certificate to show that the appellant was ailing from lumbar spondylosis. In our considered opinion, this would constitute the sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal before the NFAC and therefore we condone the delay of 92 days. The case laws relied upon by NFAC have no application

Gopal Krishna Karodi Sabbana, Dakshina Kannada vs. Dy./Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Mangalore

ITA 1508/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 271B

delay. These is no delay intentionally in filing appeals and reasons for delay were mainly my very poor health conditions. These reasons for delay in filing appeal, were beyond my control and not intentional 11.I further sate that my staff has read over this affidavit

Pravin Shriram Tapare, Aurangabad vs. ITO 1(5) Aurangabad, Aurangabad

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

ITA 2186/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Girish Ladda (virtual)For Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 269SSection 271D

please be deleted. 5) Without prejudice to above grounds, the Id. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by not condoning the delay in filing appeal before him, hence the order of CIT(A) may please be set aside and appellant prays before Hon ITAT that the penalty u/s 271D

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

ITA 3048/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3046, 3047 & 3048/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Pooja Prabhakar, 17 Kingston Apartments, M G Ramachandran Road Kalakshetra Colony, Chennai - 600 090. [Pan: Bcgpp-8061-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Ito, Vs. Non-Corp Ward -15(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr. R. Venkataraman, Fca & Mr. K. Vishwa Padmanabhan, Fca. : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : : 16.12.2025 : 01.01.2026 These Three Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 25.08.2025, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”). The Impugned Orders Arise Out Of The Assessments Framed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao”) U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Pertaining To Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 :-2-:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 201Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3047/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkataraman, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 201Section 69A

Ambikapur (SLP (Civil) Nos. 26310– 26311 of 2024, order dated 31 January 2025), has reiterated that while dealing with applications seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals, the authorities must adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach, ensuring that technicalities do not overshadow substantive rights. 19. Having regard

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

ITA 3046/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3046, 3047 & 3048/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Pooja Prabhakar, 17 Kingston Apartments, M G Ramachandran Road Kalakshetra Colony, Chennai - 600 090. [Pan: Bcgpp-8061-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By Ito, Vs. Non-Corp Ward -15(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr. R. Venkataraman, Fca & Mr. K. Vishwa Padmanabhan, Fca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Three Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 25.08.2025, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”). The Impugned Orders Arise Out Of The Assessments Framed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao”) U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Pertaining To Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Santosh Kumar Ramlaxman Yadav, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5123/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 144Section 148Section 151ASection 69

assessment year 2016-17, on the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Learned NFAC erred in not condoning delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) of 182 days even though Assessee had explained sufficient cause for delay and thus delay in filing appeal before the NFAC may be condoned

Alpha Charitable Trust, Thane vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

In the result grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 455/MUM/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms.Padmavathy Salpha Charitable Trust, Commissioner Of Income H. No.453, Ghosar Wadi, Tax (Exemption), Room No.322, 3Rd Floor, Income Bhandar Aali, Bhuigaon-West, Vs. Bhuigaon Bk, Bhuigaon B.O, Tax Office, Pmt Building, Thane. Shankar Seth Road, Pan – Aaita4259M Pune-411037. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke (Virtually Appear)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)
Section 12A

assessee submits that the Assessee is a Charitable Trust and engaged in charitable activities in accordance with its object. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The Assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed, if one more opportunity is given to contest ... were not well worse with the various compliance and working of Income Tax Portal. The Ld. AR of the Assessee vehemently argued that delay in filing appeal is not intentional and main reason was that physical copy of rejection order was not received. Considering the overall facts and the plea