“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

Vipul Kumar Tulsian, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 5, Panvel

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

ITA 2431/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2431/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Vipul Kumar Tulsian, Ito Ward 5, Vs F 1203, Patel Heritage, Panvel Kharghar, Sector 7, Navi Mumbai, Navi Mumbai- 410210

For Appellant: Shri Chintan ShahFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade-

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 24.03.2024. 2. Registry has informed that the instant appeal is time barred by 109 days. Application for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit is placed on record. Main reason for delay is due to change of address of the assessee who has shifted from ... Supreme Court) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382) condone the delay of 109 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly accepted that due to non compliance

Shivkant Sakharam Mohite, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer War 1(5), Aurangabad

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

ITA 2119/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri<br>Milind Debaje,<br>JCIT<br>(virtual)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

Assessment Year (**AY**) 2017-18. - 2. Registry has informed that the present appeal is time barred by 438 days. Application for condonation of delay has been furnished and one of the major reasons for the delay is that taxation matters, which were being looking after by the Tax Consultant ... case of *Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh* judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), hereby condone the delay of 438 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. - 3. When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee

Chairman Florida Estate B Co Op Housing Society Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Cir-7, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1986/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT –DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 80P

Ld.CIT(A). 4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We have also gone through the application seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal placed at page Nos.12-13 and also gone through the application filed in support of condonation of delay in filing ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), hereby condone the delay of 2698 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 5. So far as merits of the case are concerned, the issue is only regarding the disallowance

Chairman Florida Estate B Co Op Housing Society Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 7, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1704/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Subas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT –DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 80P

Dhanashree Sandeep Shete, Sangli vs. ITO, Ward No- 1, Sangli

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

ITA 1690/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Joshi (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 147Section 148Section 44A

There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was 2 prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing ... condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “Ground 1: Sec 44AD The learned CIT(A) erred in applying the provisions of Section 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the entire gross receipts of Rs.2

Dilip Jagannath Samant, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5638/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri S C AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR

Section 147Section 250Section 270A

No.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appeal and not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has made an application for condonation of delay as per his application dated ... appeal is still pending before ld. CIT(A). Under the circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the present appeal by not condoning the delay for which an application for condonation had been filed. He has, therefore, requested for remanding the appeal

Domet Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5482/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2008-09) Domet Trading Private Vs. Dcit-5(1)(2) Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Shop No. B/1, Ground Karve Road, Floor, Mahavir Darshan Mumbai-400020. Saidham, 3Rd Kumbharwada Lane, Grigaon, Mumbai-400004. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaccd5181C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 68

filed electronically, the dismissed e-appeal contested in the above appeal before Hon'ble ITAT was filed imunediately along with the application for condonation of delay taken place as provided under the Act. 4. That the Id. C.I.T. (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi ought to have admitted the appeal condoning the delay ... satisfied with the assessee’s explanation citing technical glitch in the e- filing software of the department, ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. AR has submitted that

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Asr Multimetals Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals for all the assessment years filed by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 4935/MUM/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 133(6)Section 80I

4931/Mum/2024 cause for not filing the appeals on time. Hence, the delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay stands allowed. 3. As the facts are identical in the instant appeals, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking ITA No. 4935/Mum/2025

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Asr Multimetals Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals for all the assessment years filed by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 4933/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 133(6)Section 80I

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Asr Multimetals Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals for all the assessment years filed by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 4931/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 133(6)Section 80I

Agma Polymers Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -28, Delhi

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

ITA 4040/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shivam Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, CIT DR

dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay of 28 days and the ld. CIT (A) did not entertain the condonation of delay requested by the assessee and rejected the same. He submitted that ld. CIT (A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal caused

Shivam Sundram Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Jhandewalan

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

ITA 4039/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarshivam Sundram Buildwell Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 27, C – 2/19, West Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 034. (Pan :Aakcs7505F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mudit Bansal, Advocate Shri Sumaksh Mahajan, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date Of Order : 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-25, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 25.04.2025 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That There Was A Delay Of 55 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit (A) & The Assessee Has Requested To Condone The Same On The Ground That The Director Of The Company Was Medically Unfit & Suffering From Various

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, CIT DR

dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay of 55 days and the ld. CIT (A) did not entertain the condonation of delay requested by the assessee and rejected the same. He submitted that ld. CIT (A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal caused

Shri Muzafer Ahmad Rather, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Udhampur

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

ITA 427/ASR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C. A

Section 143(3)Section 250

NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961 dated 26.09.2022. 2 I.T.A. No. 427/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is filed belatedly by 163 (One hundred sixty-three) days. The assessee has filed an application ... condonation of delay stating the fact that the first appellate order is dated 19.12.2023 and the second appeal should have been filed within 60 days i.e., 28th February, 2024. However, the said order has not been received in the e-mail id of the assessee and as per the details

Shri Mohammad Amin Sofi, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Srinagar

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

ITA 358/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Bashir Ahmad Lone, C.A

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

Ward 2, Srinagar passed u/s 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 22.12.2019. 2 I.T.A. No. 358/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is filed belatedly by 122 (One hundred twenty-two) days. The assessee has filed an application ... condonation of delay stating the fact that the order of the ld. first appellate authority dated 30.11.2023 has not been received by the assessee physically by post, and it was not known to the assessee that the said order has been served or issued through e-filing portal, because

Hushn Jahan, Amethi vs. Income Tax Officer Amethi, Amethi

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

ITA 68/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Hushn Jahan V. The Income Tax Officer Palpur Raebareli Road Amethi Jagdishpur, Musfirkhana Amethi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Autpj9095P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 69A

delay of 414 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit of the assessee, which were received by the Registry of this Bench on 09.04.2025. It was stated therein that ... that the reasons given by the assessee for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the time limit are not sufficient for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. Sr. D.R. objected to the delay being condoned. 6.0 In view of the prayer made

Ramendra Singh, Kannauj vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(3), Kannauj

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

ITA 53/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramendra Singh V. The Income Tax Officer Bahadurpur Ward 4(2)(3) Majhigawan Kannauj Kannauj (U.P) Tan/Pan:Gzqps7971P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shvetank Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That Huge Amounts Have Been Credited To The Assessee’S Bank Account No.001311002103008 Maintained With Farrukhabad District Central Co-Operative Bank, Saurikh, Kannauj By Way Of Cash & Credit Entries. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. However, The Said Notice Was

For Appellant: Shri Shvetank Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 115BSection 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80T

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 21.03.2025 for condonation of delay, stating therein that the assessee was a farmer and was not conversant with the online proceedings and, therefore, he could not access the order from ... objected to the delay being condoned. 5.0 In view of the prayer made by the Ld. A.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 6.0 During the course of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that both

Ram Kumar Maurya, Bhadohi vs. ITO, Ward - 1(5), Bhadohi

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

ITA 140/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Ram Kumar Maurya V. The Income Tax Officer Parkritkar Khamaria Ward 1(5) Bhadohi (U.P) Bhadohi Tan/Pan:Babpm1314H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.07.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. On The Basis Of The Information In Possession Of The Income Tax Department That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.12,84,330/- In His Saving Bank Account No.28260100004067 Maintained With Bank Of Baroda, Khamaria Branch, Bhadohi, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. In Response To The Statutory Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282Section 69

appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the ITA No.140/ALLD/2025 Page 5 of 7 assessee had filed an application dated Nil for condonation of delay, stating therein that since the assessee was unaware of the appellate proceedings as also of passing of ex-parte order by the Ld. First ... objected to the delay being condoned. 5.0 In view of the prayer made by the Ld. A.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 6.0 During the course of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that both

Meenu, Govindpur, Allahabad vs. Income Tax Officer CPC (NFAC, Delhi)

Appeal stands dismissed in- limine on the ground of limitation

ITA 135/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Meenu V. The Income Tax Officer Mig-23, Govindpur Cpc A-503, Satpushp Apartment Civil Lines, Allahabad Pan:Akfpm3770J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S. K. Yogeshwar, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.02.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 05.08.2017, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.8,30,470/-. The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bangalore, Vide Intimation Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), Dated 26.03.2019 Assessed The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.16,12,650/-.

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Yogeshwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 09.07.2025 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit, stating therein that the Ld. First Appellate Authority had passed the order on 09.02.2023 and during the relevant period the assessee ... Managing committee of Raghunathpur Academy and Ors, reported in 12 SCC 649 has framed certain ITA No.135/ALLD/2025 Page 4 of 8 criteria for condoning the delay in filing of appeal, which are as under: (a) Lack of bonafied imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant

Mohammad Ghufran, Kaushambi vs. ITO - 2(5), Kaushambi

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

ITA 126/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Ghufran V. The Income Tax Officer 2(5) Hazratganj Kaushambi Karari Manjhanpur Kaushambi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bpfpg0938A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Mohit Singh Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mohit SinghFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

there is a delay of 292 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, the assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 3.2 The Ld. Sr. D.R. submitted that since the assessee has not filed any application for condonation ... appeal be dismissed as un-admitted. 3.3 However, looking into the facts of the case, in the interest of substantial justice, I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 4.0 On merits, the Ld. Sr. D.R., placing reliance on the order

Suresh Kumar Somani, Malkangiri vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Berhampur

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

ITA 55/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.55 /Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Suresh Kumar Somani…………………………………................……….……Appellant Motu Road, Korukonda B.O, Alur, Malkangiri (Odisha), Odissa - 764045.. [Pan: Acxps8005Q] Vs. Acit, Berhampur………....………..…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri R. B. Doshi, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 21, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 228 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 40A(3)

days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of the delay. After considering the reasons cited in the affidavit for condonation of delay, we find that the reasons are valid and consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal