← All Phrases

“condonation of delay”

AppealsSection 249Section 24912,312 judgments

The decision most relied on for condonation of delay is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on condonation of delay

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.

Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
2025 INSC 382 · 2025 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

Non-deliberate procedural delays caused by circumstances beyond control must be condoned in the interest of substantial justice, even if the delay is significant, such as over 1500 days.

Vedabhai v. Santaram
253 ITR 798 · 2002 · Supreme Court
262
citing judgments

When substantial justice and technical considerations are in conflict, substantial justice should be prioritized. Condoning delay requires a cautious approach without malafide or dilatory tactics, and 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.

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.

Judgments citing condonation of delay

Pedaveeti Swathi, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1785/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1785/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Pedaveeti Swathi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-9(1), Pan: Fugps2126J Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 04/03/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/06/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 27/02/2024 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 69A

contra, Dr. Sachin Kumar, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. Sr-DR”) did not raise any objection to the seeking of condonation of delay by the assessee/appellant. 11. We have given thoughtful consideration and after taking cognizance of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana

Parvathaneni Praveen, Khammam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Khammam

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1271/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiao.4Tt.A /Ita.No.1271/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: Sri KA Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

delay of 159 days in filing the appeal may be condoned. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has vehemently opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that there is no sufficient cause for the delay of 159 days in filing the appeal. ITA.No.1271/Hyd./2025 4. We have

Mvr Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 1254/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Filed Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavits Explaining The Reasons Contending, Inter Alia, That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Period Of Limitation Due To Miscommunication & Misguidance With The Appointed Learned Counsel Regarding The Case Proceedings To The Assessee. Further, The Appellant, Relied Entirely On The Learned Counsel & The Company'S Internal Accounting Staff For Updates & Developments, Was Under The Bona Fide Impression That The Proceedings Were Being Diligently Pursued & Attended. In Addition To That, The Part Time Accountant, Mr. Pedditi Gopal Reddy Who Was Managing The Accounts Of The Appellant'S Company & Dealt With Appointed Counsel Unfortunately Fell Gravely Ill During The Covid-19 Pandemic Period & Passed Away Which Led To A Breakdown In The Flow Of Communication Between The Assessee & Their Legal Representative. The Assessee Only

For Appellant: Srinavya Adabala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR
Section 253(3)

outset, there is a delay of 2345 days in filing the above appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay along with affidavits explaining the reasons contending, inter alia, that the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation due to miscommunication and misguidance ... control of the assessee. 3. Sri Siva Prasad SV, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, strongly opposed for condonation of delay and submitted that, the assessee could not explain reasons for delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal with ‘sufficient and reasonable cause’ and submitted that

Mvr Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-16(4), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 1253/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Filed Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavits Explaining The Reasons Contending, Inter Alia, That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Period Of Limitation Due To Miscommunication & Misguidance With The Appointed Learned Counsel Regarding The Case Proceedings To The Assessee. Further, The Appellant, Relied Entirely On The Learned Counsel & The Company'S Internal Accounting Staff For Updates & Developments, Was Under The Bona Fide Impression That The Proceedings Were Being Diligently Pursued & Attended. In Addition To That, The Part Time Accountant, Mr. Pedditi Gopal Reddy Who Was Managing The Accounts Of The Appellant'S Company & Dealt With Appointed Counsel Unfortunately Fell Gravely Ill During The Covid-19 Pandemic Period & Passed Away Which Led To A Breakdown In The Flow Of Communication Between The Assessee & Their Legal Representative. The Assessee Only

For Appellant: Srinavya Adabala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR
Section 253(3)

outset, there is a delay of 2345 days in filing the above appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay along with affidavits explaining the reasons contending, inter alia, that the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation due to miscommunication and misguidance ... control of the assessee. 3. Sri Siva Prasad SV, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, strongly opposed for condonation of delay and submitted that, the assessee could not explain reasons for delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal with ‘sufficient and reasonable cause’ and submitted that

Chaitanya Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1098/HYD/2025[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1098/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Chaitanya Agarwal, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward-7(1), Hyderabad. Telangana. Pin 500 012 Pin – 500 084. Telangana. Pan Artpc2750K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By Sri Akshay Surana, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

Section 144Section 270ASection 68

ITA.No.1098/Hyd./2025 2. There is a delay of 148 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit of the assessee as well as the affidavit of the accountant of the assessee. The learned Authorised Representative ... appeal of the assessee may be admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has opposed to the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee has failed to explain any reasonable cause, much less a sufficient cause for the delay of 148 days

Gopal Reddy Gattu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1011/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
Section 143(3)Section 263

Gattu 5. Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue, Dr. Narendra Kumar, on the other hand, opposed the petition filed by the appellant for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal and submitted that, the appellant has not demonstrated ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay of 70 days. It was contended ... affidavit, namely the health-related absence of the Income Tax Practitioner and the communication lapse, do not constitute adequate grounds for condonation of delay. Therefore, it was prayed that, the petition for condonation of delay may be rejected. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the petition

Madan Mohan Rao Puvvada, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1152/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1152/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Madan Mohan Rao The Income Tax Puvvada, Hyderabad. Officer, Ward-5(1), Vs. Pin – 500 063. Hyderabad. Pan Agjpp4754H Telangana. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263

ITA.No.1152/Hyd./2024 2. There is a delay of 158 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that only soft copy ... pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has vehemently objected for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and submitted that the impugned order is digitally signed and therefore, there is no need of certified

Income-Tax Officer, Tiruchirappalli vs. Palanikumar Velusamy Krishnakumar, Tiruchirappalli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2998/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

outset, the Revenue’s appeal, is delayed by ‘58’ days, for which, the Addl. CIT has filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay, contents of the affidavit reveals that the cause for the delay is excusable. Palanikumar Velusamy Krishnakumar :: 2 :: Hence, the delay of ‘58’ days in filing

Ravi Vijayalakshmi, Athipattu vs. ITO, Ncw-6(1), Chennai

ITA 2887/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

filed after a delay of 570 days (from 27.03.2024 to 21.10.2025) and in the affidavit of the assessee :-2-: ITA. No:2887/Chny/2025 seeking condonation of delay, it was stated that the assessee had initially preferred not to file an appeal while the settlement was sought with an attempt to derive ... further delay. 3. On examining the evidence brought on record and the contents of the affidavit, it is found that the petition for condoning the delay deserves to be admitted as the circumstances detailed in it for such delay is found to be satisfactory. Therefore, the delay in filing this

Mm 289 Thondamanginam Primary Agri Co-Op Credit Society, Karur vs. Income Tax Oficer, Karur

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

ITA 2880/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2880/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

made a written submission on 25.02.2026 wherein it is stated that the assessee filed a petition before Chief Commissioner of Income Tax seeking condonation of delay in filing the return of income which was rejected by the CCIT. It is further submitted that the assessee filed a writ petition before ... Madras High Court against the rejection order of CCIT and the Hon'ble High Court has directed the concerned authorities to condone the delay in filing the return of income. Accordingly, it is submitted that the assessee should be allowed the deduction

Sudhir Namdev Kadam, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7175/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsudhir Namdev Kadam, Vs. Ito Ward 42(3)(4) 501/1/A Wing Panchasheel Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051. Chs, Dr E Moses Road, Worli Naka, Mumbai, Mumbai, Worli S.O 400018. Pan/Gir No: Aqypk0373Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prateek Jain Respondent By Ms. Deepika Arora (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 10Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24Section 250Section 80CSection 80D

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal as per reasons mentioned in the impugned order. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case ... order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal was filed late by 175 days. The reasons for condonation of delay in Form No.35 was that the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond control of the assessee. The assessment order and notices were neither delivered

Deepak Jayantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6766/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Punamiya (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr
Section 147Section 250Section 50CSection 69

which was not found satisfactory by the Ld. Commissioner and thus the Ld. Commissioner not only rejected the request of the Assessee for condonation of delay but also the appeal filed by the Assessee on merit. 4. We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances ... genuine but still the Ld. Commissioner adopted the hyper technical approach. Even otherwise, the Ld. Commissioner, while rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay, proceeded with the case of the Assessee on merit, and it is a fact that, despite filing submissions by the Assessee twice, the Ld. Commissioner, failed

Anil Kumar Singh, Mathura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Mathura

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 586/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Ito, Ward –1(3)(1) Pushpanjali Dwarika Near Bhagwan Nagar N.H.-2, Mathura Pan : Axjps7413B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order

Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

wherein ld CIT has dismissed assessee’s appeal upon rejection of assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing first appeal. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that the first appeal was filed on 17.10.20 against the assessment order dated 05.12.19 passed u/s. 144 read with section ... days, however, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within the period. Ld CIT however did not find any sufficient cause to condone the said delay and dismissed assessee

The Sandhiar Group Coop Cotton Gorwers Association Ltd, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(4), Surat

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

ITA 768/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.768/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Sandhiar Group Coop Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Cotton Gorwers Association Ward-2(2)(4) V/S. Ltd. Surat 395 001 At Sayan, Tal. Olpad Sayan S.O., Sandhiyer Surat - 394 130 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaat 3216 C (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 80P

basis of facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law on subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay of 10 days in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well ... before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 3. The appeal is time-barred by 263 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been stated that in the Appeal Form No.35 filed before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has mentioned

Manish Bhogilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-3, Navsari

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

ITA 687/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.687/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manish Bhogilal Shah The Income Tax Officer-3 बनाम/ 6/B, Crown Mansion Navsari – 396 445 V/S. Ground Floor Forjeet Street, Cross Lane, Mumbai – 400 026 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acqps 6699 F (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08 /12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27 /02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 27/12/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Manish Bhogilal Shah Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18 2

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 68Section 69C

claim the deduction under chapter VI-A” 3. There is a delay of 115 days in filing the appeal. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, the reasons for the delay as Manish Bhogilal Shah vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 3 well as non-appearance ... assessee be given an opportunity of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A), however subject to payment of reasonable costs. We accordingly, condone the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file

Bharatsinh Jaysinh Varachhia, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Bharuch

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 376/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 376 & 1175/Srt/2025 Assessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 271ASection 69A

assessee. 5. There is a delay of 484 days in filing the present appeal for which the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay thereby stating that the assessee was not having email address and has provided email address of his tax consultant before

Bharatsinh Jaysinh Varachhiya, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Bharuch

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1175/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 376 & 1175/Srt/2025 Assessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 271ASection 69A

assessee. 5. There is a delay of 484 days in filing the present appeal for which the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay thereby stating that the assessee was not having email address and has provided email address of his tax consultant before

Satyabrata Jena, Kendrapada vs. Dcitcircle-1(1) Cuttack, Cuttack

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

ITA 55/CTK/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasatyabrata Jena, D.C.I.T., At/P.O.- Nikirai, Dist.-Kendrapara, Circle-1(1), Vs. Kendrapara-754214 (Odisha) Cuttack. Pan No. Adypj 0274 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

hearing before us, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay of 11 days in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was also the submission that the Assessing Officer has also passed assessment ... prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for readjudication on merit after condoning the delay in filing appeal before the Satyabrata Jena Vs DCIT ld. CIT(A) and the assessee could be able to produce all the evidences to substantiate his claim

Nandyala Naga Venkata Raju, West Godavari Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tanaku

ITA 565/VIZ/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

time involved a delay of 176 days. The Ld.AR to support his aforesaid contentions had taken us through the application for condonation of delay, dated 03.02.2026 and the supporting “affidavit”, dated 03.02.2026 filed by the assessee along with the copies of medical certificates. The Ld.AR based on the aforesaid facts ... Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering

Jagan Mohan Rao Valluru, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

ITA 469/VIZ/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.468/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year:2009-10) Sai Sri Anusha Valluru 62-8, Flat No. 201 Kesava Residency Netaji Street, Patamata Vijayawada [Pan: Ahopv5451H] Vs. Dcit – Circle-2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex M.G.Road, Vijayawada-520002 Andhra Pradesh आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.469/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year:2009-10) Jagan Mohan Rao Valluru Vs. Dcit – Circle-2(1) 63-1-3, Ramalayam Street Patamatalanka Vijayawada – 520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Ahopv4864A] C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex M.G.Road, Vijayawada-520002 Andhra Pradesh करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Sr.Dr : 16.02.2026 : 27.02.2026 Per Ravish Sood, Jm: आदेश /Order

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री रवीश सूद, न्यायिक