← 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

Kulandaivel Thaalamuthu, Namakkal vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 1752/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1752/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Kulandaivel Thaalamuthu, The Assistant Commissioner 286/2, 1St Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, S.G. Complex, Circle 1, Thuraiyur Road, Namakkal. Namakkal – 637 001. Pan: Abnpt 2841G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 44A

There is a delay of 170 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and also a supporting affidavit. On perusal of the reasons stated in the condonation petition, we are of the view that there is sufficient cause for late filing ... this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. The solitary issue that is raised is whether tax is to be computed on presumptive basis u/s.44AD or 44AE

Tiruchitambalam Projects Limited, Nagercoil vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagercoil

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1689/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1689/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Tiruchitambalam Projects Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.126, K.P.Road, Income Tax, Chettikulam Junction, Circle-1, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari, Nagercoil. Tamil Nadu-629 002. [Pan: Aaact6980B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)

delay of 11 days identified by the registry. It was argued that the letter of the assessee dated 12.06.2025 requesting for condonation of delay indicates that there was no sufficient cause was available with the assessee. It was contended that no evidence had been adduced in support of averments made ... condonation of delay. Further, it was argued that the assessee is casual and irresponsible in attending to its requirements. It was consequently argued that the delay be not condoned and appeal be dismissed. 4.0 We have considered the arguments of the Ld. DR in the light of material available

Techsol Engineering Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1500/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1500/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Techsol Engineering Services (India) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, 1St Floor, No. 83, Corporate Ward 3(1), Sapthagiri Apartments, Ttk Road, Chennai. Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aadct1863A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ranjit Singh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2021 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 1273 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition Accompanied By Notarized Affidavit By Giving Explanation To Condone The Delay.

For Appellant: Shri Ranjit Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 250

that this appeal is filed with a delay of 1273 days. The assessee filed petition accompanied by notarized affidavit by giving explanation to condone the delay. 2 I.T.A. No.1500/Chny/25 3. The ld. AR Shri Ranjit Singh drew our attention to para 3 of the affidavit and submits that the assessee ... delay is due to lack of communication, but, not deliberate as the assessee always being complied and prompt upon awareness. He prayed to condone the delay. 4. The ld. DR Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT submits that the assessee failed to show sufficient cause in explaining the delay

Philosophical Practitioners Association of India, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3168/DEL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

condoned. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted that there is an inordinate delay and objected to the condonation of delay. 4. We have heard both the counsels on the issue of condonation of delay. In our considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause ... delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee brought to our notice that the applicant filed an application on 29.06.2024 in Form 10AB for registration

Philosophical Practitioners Association of India, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3167/DEL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

condoned. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted that there is an inordinate delay and objected to the condonation of delay. 4. We have heard both the counsels on the issue of condonation of delay. In our considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause ... delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee brought to our notice that the applicant filed an application on 29.06.2024 in Form 10AB for registration

Rajbir Singh, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3104/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Rajbir Singh Vs. Acit 1625A, The Magnolia, Dlf Central Circle-19, City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Khandewalan, Haryana New Delhi Pan: Aaups2176H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Amarjeet Singh, Ca Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2025 Order

Section 13ASection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 29A

Year 2013-14. 2. There is a delay of 09 days in filing the present appeal and the Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay filed by the Assessee, the delay of 09 days in filing the present

Baljeet Memorial Charitable Trust, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward Exemption-1(3), New Delhi

ITA 5662/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2019-20 Baljeet Memorial Charitable Trust, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-9/27, Vasant Vihar, Ward Exemption-1(3), New Delhi – 110 057. New Delhi. Pan: Aaatb1194J Assessee By : Shri Ashok Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeal No.Nfac/2018-19/10214446, Filed Before Him Against The Order Dated 14.10.2022 Passed U/S 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short).

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 154

hearing both the sides, we find that the appeal before this Tribunal is delayed by 39 days and an application for condonation of delay has been filed citing the reasons that due to lapse on the part of the Chartered Accountant representing the assessee, there was delay in filing ... only the question of delay should have been adjudicated by the NFAC. However, considering that the delay is not of substantial period, we condone the delay before the NFAC and direct the NFAC to admit the appeal and adjudicate the appeal on merits. An opportunity of hearing shall be given

New Navhind Multipurpose Multistate Co-Operative Society, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 256/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

U/sec 250 of the Act. The assesse has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filling the appeal and sustaining the disallowance of deduction u/sec80P of the Act by the Assessing Officer. 2. At the time of hearing ... Tribunal and the assesse has 2 ITA. No.256/PAN/2025 New Navhind Multi purpose Multi State Cooperative society. filed the affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, condone the delay and admit the appeal

Rushdi Construction Pvt Ltd, Lucknow vs. ITO-5(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 395/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Suyash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 221

very outset, it is observed that the appeal is delayed by 188 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay in which it has been submitted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was uploaded on the e-filing portal on 19.10.2023 and in view

The Gharthoon Agri Cultural Service Society, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, Palampur

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 928/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

ground that it was time barred by 120 days. The assessee has filed an application for ITA No.925 to 928/CHD/2025 A.Y.2015-16 3 condonation of delay but ld.CIT (Appeals) did not condone the delay. 5. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee, at the very outset submitted that Hon'ble Supreme ... without jurisdiction. The ld.CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated this fact and in this situation ought to have condoned the delay, if any, happened on account of bonafide error of the assessee. We cannot legalize the illegality on account of minor irregularity, if any, at the end of the assessee

The Gharthoon Agri Cultural Services Society, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, Palampur

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 927/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.925 To 928/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was time barred by 120 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay but 1d.CIT (Appeals) did not condone the delay. 5. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee, at the very outset submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court ... without jurisdiction. The 1d.CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated this fact and in this situation ought to have condoned the delay, if any, happened on account of bonafide error of the assessee. We cannot legalize the illegality on account of minor irregularity, if any, at the end of the assessee

The Gharthoon Agri Cultural Services Society, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, Palampur

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 926/CHANDI/2025[2015-16 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

ground that it was time barred by 120 days. The assessee has filed an application for ITA No.925 to 928/CHD/2025 A.Y.2015-16 3 condonation of delay but ld.CIT (Appeals) did not condone the delay. 5. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee, at the very outset submitted that Hon'ble Supreme ... without jurisdiction. The ld.CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated this fact and in this situation ought to have condoned the delay, if any, happened on account of bonafide error of the assessee. We cannot legalize the illegality on account of minor irregularity, if any, at the end of the assessee

The Gharthoon Agri Cultural Services Society, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, Palampur

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 925/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

ground that it was time barred by 120 days. The assessee has filed an application for ITA No.925 to 928/CHD/2025 A.Y.2015-16 3 condonation of delay but ld.CIT (Appeals) did not condone the delay. 5. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee, at the very outset submitted that Hon'ble Supreme ... without jurisdiction. The ld.CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated this fact and in this situation ought to have condoned the delay, if any, happened on account of bonafide error of the assessee. We cannot legalize the illegality on account of minor irregularity, if any, at the end of the assessee

Sujit Vitthal Shinde, Pune vs. ITO Ward 11(1), Pune

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

ITA 100/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.100/Pun/2025 Assessment Year 2021-22

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

barred by limitation as the appellant has filed this appeal with a delay of 75 days. Appellant in support of its plea for condonation of delay has filed an Affidavit stating that due to no proper response from the Income Tax portal under the login of the appellant and even ... Shinde positive outcome. There is a delay in filing of the appeal but the delay is not intentional. Therefore, it is prayed for condoning the delay. On perusing the averments made in the affidavit, we are satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the appellant to file the appeal within the stipulated

Institute for Multi-Lingual Education (Imli), Pune vs. CIT Exemptions, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant trust are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2732/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Nov 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

informed that there is delay of 23 days in presenting the instant appeals before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed application(s) for condonation of delay explaining the reasons. Main reason was stated to be that the person looking after the affairs of the society was travelling for various workshops ... there is no material on record to disbelieve the explanation of the appellant trust and keeping in view the salutary principle governing the condonation of delay that the appellant does not gain anything in filing the appeals with delay, we are of the considered opinion that these are fit cases

Institute for Multi-Lingual Education (Imli), Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant trust are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2731/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Nov 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

informed that there is delay of 23 days in presenting the instant appeals before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed application(s) for condonation of delay explaining the reasons. Main reason was stated to be that the person looking after the affairs of the society was travelling for various workshops ... there is no material on record to disbelieve the explanation of the appellant trust and keeping in view the salutary principle governing the condonation of delay that the appellant does not gain anything in filing the appeals with delay, we are of the considered opinion that these are fit cases

Raju Saha, Barasat, Twenty Four Parganas North vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle - 61, Kolkata

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

ITA 2056/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2056/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Raju Saha,……………………………….……...……Appellant Swapanapuri, Duttapukur Hatkhola, Barasat, 24-Parganas (N), Kolkata-743248, West Bengal [Pan:Awops1579E] -Vs.- Dcit/Acit,…………………………………….……..Respondent Circle-61, Kolkata, Office Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 192Section 270ASection 80C

filing the appeal within due time. There is also no merit in the reasons mentioned in Form No. 35 of appeal for condonation of delay. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to condone the delay of 301 days in filing appeal before ... both the sides and perused the material available on record. By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I condone the delay and remit the matter back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to examine the details filed by the assessee. I find that

Shushant Gupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 32(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1441/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1441/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Sushant Gupta,…………………….………...……Appellant Geeta, D-59, New Market, Kolkata-700087 [Pan:Adbpg8015B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-32(2), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, 10B, Middleton Road, Kolkata-700071

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. However, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 2nd July, 2025 before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 245 days mentioning that due to his mental illness, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period and the delay ... appeal, due to that there was a delay of 245 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay in the appeal. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing

Tawfiqur Rahman, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1424/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1424/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tawfiqur Rahman,…………………….……...……Appellant 39A, Old Ballygunge, 2Nd Lane, Kolkata-700019, West Bengal [Pan:Amhpr8245H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-30(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700068 Appearances By: Shri C.M. Roy, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 13, 2025 O R D E R

Section 147Section 250

filing the appeal within due time. There is also no merit in the reasons mentioned in Form No. 35 of appeal for condonation of delay. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to condone the delay of 9 days in filing appeal before ... both the sides and perused the material available on record. By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I condone the delay and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) to dispose of the case on merit after providing one more opportunity

Dinesh Kumar Jeetendra Bhandari, Chennai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chenai

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

ITA 1686/CHNY/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1686/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dinesh Kumar Jeetendra Bhandari, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 27B, Mooker Nallamuthu Street, Income Tax, Chennai G.P.O., Parrys, Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan:Aaapb6406F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Hitesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 57

year 2016-17. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 72 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. 2 I.T.A. No.1686/Chny/25 Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated