← 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

Monika Jain, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1147/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 251

days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: “Monika Jain, the above-named assessee-appellant would like to submit that. 1. That the appellant is carrying on business of Media & Broadcasting ... delay in filing the form 36 is bona fide & unintentional and backed by reasonable cause. It is therefore, humbly prayed to kindly condone the delay of 233 days in filing Form 36 and allow admission of appeal and oblige. 4. During the course of hearing on delay part

Jambo Credit and Thrift Co-Operative Society Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO-6(1), Jaipur

ITA 1109/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal Feeling Aggrieved By Order Dated 12.06.2024, Passed By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2018-19, As Thereby The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Has Been Dismissed.

For Appellant: Ms. Apksha Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

assessment order dated 22.04.2021 re- computing total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,07,77,113/- has been confirmed. Issue of Condonation of delay 3. Appellant presented appeal before the Registry on 05.08.2025. The impugned order is dated 12.06.2024. As per deficiency note raised by the Registry, the appeal ... came to be filed 339 days after the prescribed period of limitation. 4. Regarding condonation of delay, appellant has subsequently filed an application. Firstly, said application has been argued by both the sides. 5. In the application, applicant has alleged that no communication or indication was received by the applicant

Shri Goverdhan Saraswati Vidhya Mandir, Dharampur vs. CIT Exemption, Lucknow

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

ITA 430/LKW/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Nov 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

Section 12ASection 253(3)Section 80G

beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short). The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to I.T.A. No.430/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2024-25 2 admit ... appeal for hearing. The learned CIT, D.R. did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and being convinced with the pleadings of the assessee, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned

Ram Bhagat Phatela, Sirsa vs. Income Tax Officer, Sirsa

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

ITA 327/CHANDI/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2025AY 2022-2023

rectified at the CPC level. 7. Per Contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the condonation of delay is not automatic and must be based on cogent and verifiable evidence showing “sufficient cause." 7.1 The DR placed reliance on the judgments ... laid down that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations and that a liberal approach should be adopted in condonation of delay when no mala fide intention or deliberate inaction is established. 8.2 The Hon'ble Chandigarh Bench various matters has also consistently condoned delays in filing appeals before

Abhubhai Nagarbhai Kolipatel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1722/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr DR
Section 250

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] has erred in not allowing condonation of delay in filing the appeal, despite the Appellant having demonstrated sufficient and reasonable cause, being an illiterate person residing in a remote village with

Vibhav Dilip Metha, Ahilyanagar vs. ITO, Wrd-2, Ahilyanagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2074/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2074/Pun/2025 Assessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

That this affidavit is executed for filing the same before the Hon. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pune in the matter of condonation of delay in filing the above referred appeal. 11. That the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 306 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal. 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to ITA No.2075/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2015-16 in the assessee

Rajrshi Shahu Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Kurundwad, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ichalkaranji

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

ITA 1955/PUN/2025[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1955/Pun/2025 Assessment Year 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(d)

barred by limitation as the appellant has filed this appeal with a delay of 18 days. Appellant in support of its plea for condonation of delay has filed an Affidavit stating that the appellant society was previously allotted PAN AAABR0166N 2 which was for Body of Individual. Therefore, appellant society ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 18 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue relates

Ujjaini Mahakali Devasthanam, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1385/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

For Appellant: Sri KVSSN Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 147Section 15(1)Section 271BSection 6

respectively. 2. There is a delay of 607 days in filing all six appeals. The assessee has filed petitions for condonation of delay whicha re supported by the affidait of the Executive Officer of the assessee temple. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the administration ... reasons explained by the assessee are having no bearing on the cause of delay. Thus, he has opposed to the condonation of delay. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dipsute that the assessee temple was under the superivsion

Ujjaini Mahakali Devasthanam, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1384/HYD/2025[20216-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

For Appellant: Sri KVSSN Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 147Section 15(1)Section 271BSection 6

respectively. 2. There is a delay of 607 days in filing all six appeals. The assessee has filed petitions for condonation of delay whicha re supported by the affidait of the Executive Officer of the assessee temple. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the administration ... reasons explained by the assessee are having no bearing on the cause of delay. Thus, he has opposed to the condonation of delay. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dipsute that the assessee temple was under the superivsion

Ujjaini Mahakali Devasthanam, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1383/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

For Appellant: Sri KVSSN Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 147Section 15(1)Section 271BSection 6

respectively. 2. There is a delay of 607 days in filing all six appeals. The assessee has filed petitions for condonation of delay whicha re supported by the affidait of the Executive Officer of the assessee temple. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the administration ... reasons explained by the assessee are having no bearing on the cause of delay. Thus, he has opposed to the condonation of delay. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dipsute that the assessee temple was under the superivsion

Ujjaini Mahakali Devasthanam, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1382/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

For Appellant: Sri KVSSN Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 147Section 15(1)Section 271BSection 6

respectively. 2. There is a delay of 607 days in filing all six appeals. The assessee has filed petitions for condonation of delay whicha re supported by the affidait of the Executive Officer of the assessee temple. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the administration ... reasons explained by the assessee are having no bearing on the cause of delay. Thus, he has opposed to the condonation of delay. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dipsute that the assessee temple was under the superivsion

Ujjaini Mahakali Devathanam, Secunderbad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1381/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

For Appellant: Sri KVSSN Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 147Section 15(1)Section 271BSection 6

respectively. 2. There is a delay of 607 days in filing all six appeals. The assessee has filed petitions for condonation of delay whicha re supported by the affidait of the Executive Officer of the assessee temple. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the administration ... reasons explained by the assessee are having no bearing on the cause of delay. Thus, he has opposed to the condonation of delay. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dipsute that the assessee temple was under the superivsion

Ujjaini Mahakali Devasthanam, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1380/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

For Appellant: Sri KVSSN Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 147Section 15(1)Section 271BSection 6

respectively. 2. There is a delay of 607 days in filing all six appeals. The assessee has filed petitions for condonation of delay whicha re supported by the affidait of the Executive Officer of the assessee temple. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the administration ... reasons explained by the assessee are having no bearing on the cause of delay. Thus, he has opposed to the condonation of delay. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dipsute that the assessee temple was under the superivsion

Sri Ajeya Sankara Trust, Tirupati vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1366/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1366/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2025-26) Sri Ajeya Sankara Trust Vs. Cit (Exemption) Tirupati Hyderabad Pan:Aaxts2264F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H. Srinivasulu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr.Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 17/05/2025 Of Cit (Exemption) Whereby The Application Of The Assessee In Form 10Ab Seeking Regular Approval U/S 80G Of The Act Was Rejected On The Ground Of Barred By Limitation.

For Appellant: Advocate H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: : Dr.Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

learned CIT (Exemption) Hyderabad failed to serve the notice before rejection of the application in Form 10AB dated 15/11/2024 and petition for condonation of delay. 12. Learned CIT (Exemption) Hyderabad has granted final registration to the applicant trust u/s 12A on 25.06.2025 for a period from ... Taxmann.com 571 (Pune-Trib). 4. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the CIT (Exemption) has no power to condone the delay in filing the application and therefore, once the application was found to be belated, the same is liable to be rejected. He has relied upon

The Sullurpet Farmers Service Co Operative Society Limited, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudur

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

ITA 1346/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1346/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2017-2018) The Sullurpet Farmers Service Co-Operative Society Limited, The Income Tax Officer, Sullurpeta – 524 121. Vs. Ward-1, Gudur. Nellore District. Pin – 524 101. Pan Aacat7587J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Harsha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Rakesh Chintagumpula, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: CA HarshaFor Respondent: Sri Rakesh Chintagumpula, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 80P

outset, there is a delay of 204 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay which is supported by the Affidavit of the Secretary of the Assessee Co-Operative Society. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee submitted that the assessee ... considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the cause of delay explained by the 5 ITA.No.1346/Hyd./2024 assessee in the application for condonation of delay as well as in the affidavit. We have also gone through the relevant record filed by the assessee regarding the proceedings initiated

Royal Shelter, Trichy vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Trichy

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

ITA 1782/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1782/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Royal Shelter, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. D-27, 2Nd Floor, J.P. Towers, Income Tax, 7Th Cross, Thillainagar, Circle 1(1), Trichy 620 018. Trichy. [Pan:Aaffr8455B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.11.2024 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 143 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. CIT
Section 250

year 2018-19. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 143 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we 2 I.T.A. No.1782/Chny/25 find the reasons stated

Karthickeyan Sathya, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pudukkottai

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

ITA 1738/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1738/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Karthickeyan Sathya, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 29/1, Bahavanendal Allinjiyuendal Ward 1, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai. Tamil Nadu 614 618. [Pan: Cmmps6162D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, 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 : 12.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 40ASection 68

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 352 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. 2 I.T.A. No.1738/Chny/25 Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated

Shantilal Jain(HUF), Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1489/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 250Section 68

Centre, Delhi, [“/earned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay duly supported by the affidavit of Karta of the Page 2 of 6 ITA No. 1489/Bang/2025 assessee HUF. As per the assessee while filing ... find that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal within the prescribed limitation period. Accordingly, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the present appeal on merits. 4. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The order passed

Shahjahan Shahalam Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5574/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosaina.Ys: 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5Section 56(2)

noticed that there is delay of 554 2. days in filing the present appeal and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under: 2 Shahjahan Shahalam Shaikh., Mumbai. I, Mrs. Shahjahan Shah Alam Shaikh, daughter ... jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delaying filing of the appeal. 7. That there has been delay for which an application for condonation of delay as provided under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is being filed. 8. Hence, delay in filing the said appeal may please

DCIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5521/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Mumbai Main Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Greater Bombay, Mumbai-400023. Pan : Aaacc2498P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-11-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)

filing the appeal by the Revenue, as pointed out by the Registry. In this connection, the Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay. After hearing both the parties and perusing the facts placed on record, we find that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing