← 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

Vijit Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1246/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 147Section 234ASection 250

appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 100 days. The assessee has filed an application dated 30.08.2025 along with an Affidavit for condonation of delay. The affidavit filed by the assessee is being reproduced hereunder :- "AFFIDAVIT Reg: Sh. Vijit Singh V/s ITO Ward 3(1), Jaipur, PAN:AGWPS9272L ... counsels. Thus due to this reason the appeal could not be filed within time. 7. That the contents or averment of application for condonation of delay are true and correct and may be treated as part of this affidavit. Place : Jaipur Date : 04.09.2025 VERIFICATION Sd/- Deponent I, Vijit Singh

Geeta Vijaywargiya, Indore vs. ITO WD, Tonk

Appeal is hereby dismissed being barred by limitation

ITA 1245/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Jain, Adv. (through V.C.)For Respondent: None
Section 251(1)(a)

Greenworld Corporation, Civil Appeal No. 3312 of 2009, wherein importance of reasonable opportunity was emphasized by Hon’ble Apex Court. Condonation of delay 2. It may be mentioned here that the Registry raised a deficiency note that the appeal is barred by limitation, having been filed after a delay ... days. 3 Geeta Vijaywargiya, Indore. 3. Despite the above said deficiency note, the assessee has not submitted any application seeking condonation of delay. Column no. 11 of Form 36, requires that in case there is delay in filing of the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay

Ranjit Singh, Ropar vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Ropar

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

ITA 807/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 807/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ranjit Singh, The Ito, Kiri Afghana Behlolpur बना Warad 2 (2), Chamkaur Sahib, Rupnagar म Rupnagar 141121 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Gmqps5933A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12-11-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17-11-2025 आदेश/Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Dated 22.08.2024, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Sh Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69

delay. The affidavit is available at pages 6- 8 of the paper book 4. The ld. DR did not have any objection for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned. 5. We have considered the reasons given in the Application / Affidavit and, keeping ... view the facts and circumstances mentioned therein, we are inclined to condone the delay. 6. In this appeal the main grievance of the Assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirming the cash deposit in bank account

Aareev Foundation, Vadodara vs. CIT(E), Ahemdabad

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

ITA 1502/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parth Pathak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 253(5)

Trust an opportunity to furnish the required documentary evidence in support of its activities, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.” Application for condonation of delay in filing of the present appeal: 3. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 455 days in filing the present ... Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has laid down that a liberal and justice-oriented approach must be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay, and that substantial justice deserves to prevail over technical considerations. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy

Shri Bhavnagar Dashashrimali Kanthibandh (Vaishnav) Vanik Gnati, Bhavnagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 135/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, AR
Section 12ASection 14Section 253(5)

appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. Condonation of Delay ITA No.134 and 135/Ahd/2025 2.1 At the threshold, it is observed that there is a delay in filing the appeal in ITA No. 134/Ahd/2025 ... Registry report, there is a delay of 417 days in filing the appeals. The assessee, however, in its application for condonation of delay supported by a duly notarised affidavit, has stated that the delay is 424 days, caused due to bona fide reasons and circumstances beyond the assessee’s control

Shri Bhavnagar Dashashrimali Kanthibandh (Vaishnav) Vanik Gnati, Bhavnagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 134/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 14Section 253(5)

appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the threshold, it is observed that there is a delay in filing the appeal in ITA No. 134/Ahd/2025 before ... Registry report, there is a delay of 417 days in filing the appeals. The assessee, however, in its application for condonation of delay supported by a duly notarised affidavit, has stated that the delay is 424 days, caused due to bona fide reasons and circumstances beyond the assessee's control

Jan Sahyog Vikas Trust, Banaskantha vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 1016/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : - Jan Sahyog Vikas Trust The Cit(Exemption) Badarpura Vs. Vejalpur Ahmedabad. Bhutedi Palanpur Banaskantha 385 001 Gujarat. Pan : Aabtj 7405 K (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Urjit Shah, Ca Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(AC)

produce against the notice issued by the authority and not submitted appeal on time against rejection order, hence we will require permission for condonation of delay in filing appeal. 3. Appellant craves to add, alter or delete any grounds either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal ... aggrieved by the said order, the applicant/appellant filed the present appeal belatedly by 127 days for the reason set out in application for condonation of delay and the affidavit of the trustee. The applicant/appellant stated that on receipt of the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the CIT(E), the applicant

Bijaya Saha, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 32(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1754/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1754/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Bijaya Saha,…………….……………..……...……Appellant 135/1, Collin Street, Kolkata-700016 [Pan:Atgps1165D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-32(1), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Vinod Kr. Mathur, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 17, 2025 O R D E R

Section 144

barred by 216 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed an affidavit before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 216 days mentioning that the delay occurred due to suffering from severe blood diseases and also stating that all the businesses have completely ... days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and there was no deliberate lapse or negligence on his part. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within

Atanu Bhattacharjee, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 52(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1514/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1514/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Atanu Bhattacharjee,………………….……...……Appellant 64, Green Park, Narendrapur S.O., Kalmikhali, Pin Code-700103, W.B. [Pan:Adkpb1266A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-52(1), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014 Appearances By: Shri Sanjoy Chatterjee, F.C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 12, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 17, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)

time barred by 226 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed an affidavit and condonation petition for condoning the delay before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 226 days mentioning that the delay occurred due to different types of severe illness ... appeal, due to that there was a delay of 226 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has passed the order ex-parte without giving

Niraj Kajaria, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 29(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1482/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1482/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Niraj Kajaria,…………………………..……...……Appellant P-76D, Chetala Road, Kolkata-700027 [Pan:Aftpk7213F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-29(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 17, 2025 O R D E R

Section 147

filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed a condonation petition as well as affidavit before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 159 days mentioning that the delay occurred due to casual approach of his tax professional, who was earlier handling income tax matters ... appeal, due to that there was a delay of 159 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within

Vinaya Prasanna Kulkarni, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5726/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020

For Respondent: Mr. Haridas Bhatt
Section 115BSection 69A

present case, the Ld. available on record. It is observed that, in the present case, the Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) declined to condone the delay in filing ... extraordinary cause and therefore, this is not f appeal is not an extraordinary cause and therefore, this is not a suitable cause for condoning the delay in filing of appeal. a suitable cause for condoning the delay in filing of appeal. a suitable cause for condoning the delay in filing

Mr. Vishal Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -41(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the grounds of appeal are dismissed

ITA 4098/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing)

Section 144Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

years, which has not been explained properly. In our view, the assessee is casual in explaining the delay. Thus, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Resultantly, appeal is dismissed as unadmitted. 4. Even on merit, we find that assessing officer made addition on account of credit entry

Archana Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, in the terms aforesaid

ITA 3858/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M R Sahu, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 5

assessee filed appeal against the assessment order dated 27.11.2019 before the CIT(A) on 28.02.2021. Along with appeal, the assessee filed application for condonation of delay citing reasons for delay in filing of appeal. After excluded the period of Covid there was delay of 111 days. The CIT(A) without ... delay in filing of appeal, dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation. The assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. The ld. AR submits that the assessee had bonafide reasons for delay in filing of appeal, which were duly explained

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak Circle vs. Ravi Prakash Aggarwal, Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 776/DEL/2024[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmandcit, Rohtak Circle, Vs. Ravi Prakash Aggarwal, Rohtak. C/O M/S. R.P. Jewellers, 1186, 1St Floor, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110 006. (Pan : Adapa3506E) Co No.250/Del/025 (In Ita No.776/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ravi Prakash Aggarwal, Vs. Dcit, Rohtak Circle, C/O M/S. R.P. Jewellers, Rohtak. 1186, 1St Floor, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110 006. (Pan : Adapa3506E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gurbaksh Dang, Advocate Shri Bharat Bhushan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Order : 17.11.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Gurbaksh Dang, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 148Section 149

Revenue objected to the above facts on record. 5. We have heard both the counsels on the issue of condonation of delay. In our considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in 3 CO No.250/Del/2025 filing the cross objections. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing

Anand Swaroop, Sikandrabad vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 5711/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 154

condoned and remit the issue back to ld. CIT (A). On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue did not object in condoning the delay. 3. We have heard both the counsels on the issue of condonation of delay. In our 4. considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause ... with regard to application u/s 154, the assessee filed the 3 present appeal before us with the delay of 360 days. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the submissions

Singla Apparels Private Limited, Gandhi Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5163/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Singla Apparels Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito House No.17, Street No.2, Ward Shankar Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, C.R. Building, Ito Krishan Nagar, Delhi-110051. I.P.Estate Pan-Aajcs3628L New Delhi-110002 Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Singla Apparels Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito 7244, Mahavir Gali Ward Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-1100531. C.R. Building, Ito Pan-Aajcs3628L I.P.Estate New Delhi-110002 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Utkarsa Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.11.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dt.11.06.2024 & 12.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-8/10554/2019-20 & In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10058210 Respectively, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Penalty

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

Year 2017-18. 2. The appeal in ITA No.3445/Del/2024 [AY 2017-18] is filed delayed by 29 days for which an application for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit is filed. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal ... filed within the prescribed time limit which is beyond his control. In the above circumstances, the Ld.AR for the assessee prays for condonation of delay in filing this appeal and requested for admitting the appeal for hearing. 4. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue opposed the submission

Singla Apparels Pvt Ltd, Gandhi Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3445/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Singla Apparels Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito House No.17, Street No.2, Ward Shankar Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, C.R. Building, Ito Krishan Nagar, Delhi-110051. I.P.Estate Pan-Aajcs3628L New Delhi-110002 Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Singla Apparels Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito 7244, Mahavir Gali Ward Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-1100531. C.R. Building, Ito Pan-Aajcs3628L I.P.Estate New Delhi-110002 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Utkarsa Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.11.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dt.11.06.2024 & 12.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-8/10554/2019-20 & In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10058210 Respectively, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Penalty

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

Year 2017-18. 2. The appeal in ITA No.3445/Del/2024 [AY 2017-18] is filed delayed by 29 days for which an application for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit is filed. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal ... filed within the prescribed time limit which is beyond his control. In the above circumstances, the Ld.AR for the assessee prays for condonation of delay in filing this appeal and requested for admitting the appeal for hearing. 4. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue opposed the submission

Yasir Bilal Khan Prop. Ms Khan Impex Fruit Mandi, Parimpora Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Jammu, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 332/ASR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69

DCIT, Central Circle, Jammu passed u/s 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 16.09.2019. 2 I.T.A. No. 332/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is filed belatedly by one day. There is no appearance by the assessee

Shri Sajid Bashir Khan, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

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

ITA 302/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 302/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sajid Bashir Khan, Iqbalabad Vs. Ito, Ward (1), Bemina Srinagar, Jammu & Srinagar. Kashmir. [Pan:-Bxxpk6247E] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Bashir Ahmad Lone Ca Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 210Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 282Section 69A

which has emanated from the order of AO, Ward-3, Srinagar, passed u/s 144 of the Act, vide order dated 20.12.2019. 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the Registry that this appeal is filed belatedly by 1 day. I.T.A. No. 302/Asr/2024 2 Assessment Year

Sri Tirumala Estates and Farmlands, Visakhapatnam vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 552/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 40

such appeal was filed on 08.10.2024 with a delay of 965 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay with reasons and claimed that, although the assessment order was passed on 27.01.2022, but the same was received by the assessee on 25.04.2024 in the office ... reasons given by the assessee for not filing the appeal within the time allowed under the Act, dismissed the appeal in ‘limine’ without condoning the delay on the ground that, the reasons given by the assessee does not come under “Sufficient Cause” within the meaning of Section