“condonation of delay”

Shri Jaspal Singh, Dasuya vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Dasuya

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 245/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Jaspal Singh Ito Ward Dasuya बनाम/ Bahle, Gardhiwala Dasuya Japani Colony, Keharvali Vs. Hoshiarpur – 144207 Dasuya (Punjab) - 144205 "ायी लेखा सं./Pan. Dacps-7615-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Surinder Mahajan (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025

Rs.2,96,341/- for want of any representation from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 122 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The only prayer of Ld. AR is adjudication of the appeal

Shri Harjinder Singh, Gurdaspur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6 (4)(, Gurdaspur

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

Rs.25.65 Lacs for want of any representation from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 290 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. Keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, we restore the appeal

Jiban Das, Hailakandi vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Guwahati

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: This Hon'Ble Tribunal Is Being Filed With A Delay Of 86 Days, The Statutory Period For Filing The Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Tribunal Is

merits and a substantial question of law/tact involved in the appeal, which deserves to be adjudicated by this Hon'ble Tribunal. Denying the condonation of delay would result in grave injustice to the Appellant and would effectively deny them the opportunity of a fair hearing on merits. 5. The delay

Jiban Das, Hailakandi vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Guwahati

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: This Hon'Ble Tribunal Is Being Filed With A Delay Of 86 Days, The Statutory Period For Filing The Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Tribunal Is

merits and a substantial question of law/tact involved in the appeal, which deserves to be adjudicated by this Hon'ble Tribunal. Denying the condonation of delay would result in grave injustice to the Appellant and would effectively deny them the opportunity of a fair hearing on merits. 5. The delay

Jagannath Das, Algapur Bazar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: this Hon'ble Tribunal is being filed with a delay of 86 days, the statutory period for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal is 60 days from the date of receiving the order was expired on 29th April 2025.

merits and a substantial question of law/tact involved in the appeal, which deserves to be adjudicated by this Hon'ble Tribunal. Denying the condonation of delay would result in grave injustice to the Appellant and would effectively deny them the opportunity of a fair hearing on merits. 5. The delay

Jagannath Das, Algapur Bazar vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Guwahati

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: this Hon'ble Tribunal is being filed with a delay of 86 days, the statutory period for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal is 60 days from the date of receiving the order was expired on 29th April 2025.

merits and a substantial question of law/tact involved in the appeal, which deserves to be adjudicated by this Hon'ble Tribunal. Denying the condonation of delay would result in grave injustice to the Appellant and would effectively deny them the opportunity of a fair hearing on merits. 5. The delay

Nagahat Tea Estate Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Jorhat

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

before her. 2. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC, wrongly interpreted and applied the provisions of section 119(2)(b) for denying condonation of delay in filing form 10CCB without first considering the proviso (b) to section 119(1). 3. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC summarily rejected

Nagahat Tea Estate Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Jorhat

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

before her. 2. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC, wrongly interpreted and applied the provisions of section 119(2)(b) for denying condonation of delay in filing form 10CCB without first considering the proviso (b) to section 119(1). 3. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC summarily rejected

Nagahat Tea Estate Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Jorhat

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

before her. 2. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC, wrongly interpreted and applied the provisions of section 119(2)(b) for denying condonation of delay in filing form 10CCB without first considering the proviso (b) to section 119(1). 3. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC summarily rejected

Kripa Ranjan Debbarma, Agartala vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Agartala

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Your Honour Against The Rejection Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre Passed On 25.11.2024 & In The Matter Have E-Filed The Appeal In Form 35 Online With Grounds Of Appeal On 16.05.2025 & The Appeal Fee Rs. 10,000 Is Also Paid. However The Above Appeal Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 105 Days As The Appeal Was Supposed To Be Filed By 60 Days From The Date Of Order Ie. 25.11.2024 But Filed On 16.05.2025. Sir, I Am Not Able To Attend To My Regular Duties & Tasks. I Am 72 Years & Am Suffering From Depression & Various Age Related Issues. I Am Under Medical

income tax matters. Hence due to this also there was this delay and non compliance, however with no malafides, and I request for condonation of delays and lapses, further in view of my age and circumstances as narrated hereinbefore. I attach herewith an affidavit swearing with the above facts ... circumstances. Please find the above in order and oblige.” 1.1 Considering the reasons given in the said application and medical certificate enclosed, we condone the delay and admit this appeal for adjudication. 2. The present appeal arises from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter

Rama Laxman Dhamanekar, Belagavi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Belagavi

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

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

delay of 124 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are 2 ITA. No. 124/PAN/2025 Rama Laxman Dhamanekar . reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, condone

Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja, Khakhadabela, Paddhari vs. ITO WD 2(1)(4), RKT, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed, to the extent indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.459/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja Vs. Ito Ward 2 (1) (4), Khakhadabela, Paddhari, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Rajkot - 360110 Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agvpj2529E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ; Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 26/07/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 25/11/2009 U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. That The Reasons Recorded U/S 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Ld. A.O. Were Merely Based On The Suspicion & Without Any Tangible Material So As To Suggest Any Escapement Of Income. Hence The Reassessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Quashed Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jadeja

appeal.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 290 days. The assessee has moved a petition for condonation of delay requesting the Bench to condone of delay. Learned Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons for delay, stating that assessee had given as “E-mail ... which may be condoned in the interest of justice. 4. However, learned DR for the revenue argued that while deciding the prayer for condonation of delay, the court/appellate authority cannot ignore or give a go- by to the basic principle that the burden to prove the existence of sufficient cause

Shri Prakash Bhikhabhai Thakkar, Rajkot vs. The ITO, NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is partly allowed, to the extent indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.412/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Prakash Bhikhabhai Thakkar Vs. Income Tax Department, C/O. "Krushna House", 3Rd National Faceless Floor, Assessment B/H. Alishan Flats, Centre, Near Raiya Telephone Delhi 110001 Exchange, Rajkot 360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afjpt6621C (Appellant) (Respondent)

been filed by the assessee belatedly. The learned AR adverted my attention to the affidavit filed in this regard citing reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 73 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned ... revenue did not raise serious objection about condonation of delay. A perusal of the affidavit gives me an impression of existence of mitigating circumstances to enable me to exercise my discretion in favor of the assessee. Accordingly, the delay is condoned 4. On merit, the facts of the case, which

Harunbhai Noormamd Jindani, Jamnagar vs. ITO, Ward 2(7), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 407/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Harunbhai Noormamd Jindani The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(7), Kishan Chowk, Behind Bodyg, Vs. Jamnagar-Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar - 361001 Jamnagar-361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anxpj4114C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 20.09.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 144 Of The Act, On 11.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

This appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 572 days. The assessee has moved a petition for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the 1 Harunbhai N. Jindani delay. Learned Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons of delay, stating that assessee had given ... condoned in the interest of the Justice. 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the revenue, opposed the prayer for condonation of delay and submitted that mistake committed by the Advocate/ Tax consultant, should not be treated sufficient cause, hence the appeal should be dismissed, as the assessee failed

Shree Chalala VI Ka Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Amreli vs. The ITO Ward 3(1)(4), Rajkot-Amreli., Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A Ccountant Member & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 358/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) Shree Chalala Vi Ka Seva Sahakari Vs. The Ito Ward 3(1)(4), Mandali Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Chalala Haveli Road, Road, Dhari Amreli - 365630 Rajkot - 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatas2273D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Devina Patel, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm; Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20, Is Directed Against Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 31/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: - 1. The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Kolkata Erred In Confirming Action Of Cpc, Bangalore In Disallowing Claim Of Deduction Of Rs. 3,51,828/- U/S Sop Of The Act By Failing To Appreciate That Provisions Of Sec. 143(1)(A)(V) Do Not Provide For Denial Of Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act When The Return Of Income Is Not Filed Within Time Allowed U/S 139(1) Of The Act But U/S 139(4). 2. The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Kolkata Erred In Upholding Action Of The Cpc, Bangalore In Making Adjustment To The Returned Income Of The Appellant By Way Of Shree Chalala Vikas Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd.

dated 31.03.2025 before this Tribunal. 8. During the course of hearing, the Learned AR for the assessee submitted that CCIT Rajkot has granted condonation of delay in filing the return. (CCIT order placed on record.) 9. On the contrary the Ld. DR. for the revenue has submitted that the order ... assessee and Shree Chalala vikas seva sahkari mandli ltd. the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 80P was disallowed. since the condonation of delay accepted by the CCIT no issue of dispute remain pending. 11. In view of the above the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced

Late Chimanlal Jerambhai Bhagat Legal Heir Minaxi Rakeshbhai Kahar, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vapi

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.45/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Lt.Chimanlal Jerambhai Bhagat Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, बनाम/ Legal Heir Minaxi Rakeshbhai Vapi -396 191 Vs. Kahar, Flat No.104, Lake Castle, Pal, Nr. Jainam, Surat-395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aclpb 6752 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Mukesh Mandowara, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

filed by the assessee is delayed by 262 days. The son and legal heir of the deceased-assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before this Tribunal. He submitted that the appellate order dated 28.02.2024 was sent e-mail id of his late father ... delay was not intentional or deliberate but due to circumstances beyond the control of the legal heir of the assessee. He requested to condone the delay and admit the appeal. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submitted that the Bench may decide the preliminary issue

Chimanbhai Bhikhabhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(6), Surat

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 (Hybrid Hearing) Chimanbhai Bhikhabhai Patel Income Tax Officer , Ward-1(3)(6), बनाम/ S. No.3/2, Koliwad, Adajan Income-Tax Office, Anavil Business Vs. Gam, Adajan, Surat-395 009 Centre, Adajan Hazira Road, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afypp 4446 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

erred in dismissing the appeal filed by assessee on the ground that appeal was filed belatedly although genuine reasons were given for condonation of delay. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC ... appeal.” 3. In the instant case, appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 606 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee submitted that CIT(A) passed order on 14.12.2022 but did not supply the physical copy