“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

Prameela Porika, Suryapet vs. ACIT., Circle-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 593/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.593/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Prameela Porika Vs. Acit Suryapet Circle 7(1) Pan:Almpp8561C Suryapet (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rakesh Chintagumpula, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Smt. Prameela Porika (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 27.10.2023 For The A.Y 2017-18. Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: Advocate S. SandhyaFor Respondent: : Shri Rakesh Chintagumpula

Section 270A

delay may be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“ Ld. DR”) objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that the reasons explained by the assessee are not adequate or reasonable. It was submitted that the assessee was also non- compliant ... established sufficient cause for the delay. Considering the settled position that substantial justice must prevail over technicalities, we find it appropriate to condone the delay, subject to imposition of reasonable cost. Accordingly, the delay of 449 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned, subject to the assessee depositing

Gajanand Agarwal, East Sikkim vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1923/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Gajanand Agarwal C/O Subash Agarwal & Dcit, Central Circle 3(2) Associates, Advocates, Siddha Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Gibson,1, Gibson Lane, Suite 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Vs. 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Anxpa0211F Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mandal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR

Section 144

appeal of 2033 days and the ITA No. co-ordinate bench after considering the condonation petition along with affidavit of the assessee condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication. The ld. AR further submitted that the co- ordinate bench after considering the submission of the assessee restored ... file of the ld. AO for adjudication. 04. The ld. DR on other had fairly agreed that the co-ordinate bench has condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the file of the ld. AO in the related cases. 05. After perusing the facts available on record and hearing

Kamlesh Kumar Agarwal, Gangtok vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1922/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Kamlesh Kumar Agarwal C/O Subash Agarwal & Dcit, Central Circle 3(2) Associates, Advocates, Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Siddha Gibson,1, Gibson Lane, 110, Shanti Pally, E.M. By Pass Vs. Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Anxpa0210E Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mandal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil mandal, DR

Section 144

filing the appeal of 2033 days and the co-ordinate bench after considering the condonation petition along with affidavit of the assessee condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication. The ld. AR further submitted that the co- ordinate bench after considering the submission of the assessee restored ... file of the ld. AO for adjudication. 04. The ld. DR on other had fairly agreed that the co-ordinate bench has condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the file of the ld. AO in the related cases. 05. After perusing the facts available on record and hearing

DCIT CC1(4) Kolkkata, Kolkata vs. Dadu Taxtile LLP, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1811/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata…..……………… ……………...……….……….……Appellant Vs. Dadu Textile Llp……………......………………………….......……...…..…..Respondent 16 Tara Chand Dutta Street, Near Mohammed Ali Park, Kol-700073. [Pan: Aamfd0909M] Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Pandey, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 11, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 72 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Bandhan Financial Services Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1139/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata..……………… ……………...……….……….……Appellant Vs. Bandhan Financial Services Ltd....………………………….......……...…..…..Respondent Dn 32 Salt Lake, Salt Lake City, Sech Bhawan, S.O Salt Lake, Kol-700091. [Pan: Aabcg0611R] Appearances By: Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Biswanath Paul, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 11, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.06.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 56 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40A(3)

Aa 293 Panahalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, the appeals filed in ITA Nos

ITA 2022/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2020, 2021 & 2022/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Aa 293 Panahalli Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Ward 2(1), 1, Panakkahally, Thalavady Post, Erode. Erode 638 461. [Pan: Aacaa1566A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 27.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Towards Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], Levy Of Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Act & Levy Of Penalty Under Section 272(1)(D) Of The Act By Rejecting The Prayer Of Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 144Section 270ASection 272(1)(d)Section 80P

under section 270A of the Act and levy of penalty under section 272(1)(d) of the Act by rejecting the prayer of condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). 2 I.T.A. Nos.2020, 2021 & 2022/Chny/25 2. Since issues raised in these appeals of the assessee ... assessee for the delay in filing the appeal, are found to be reasonable cause. Accordingly, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits after considering the submissions/ evidences as may be furnished by the assessee subject to the condition of payment

Aa 293 Panahalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, the appeals filed in ITA Nos

ITA 2021/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 144Section 270ASection 272(1)(d)Section 80P

Aa 293 Panahalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, the appeals filed in ITA Nos

ITA 2020/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 144Section 270ASection 272(1)(d)Section 80P

Iqbal Maenuddin Shaikh, Mumbbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward22(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 5584/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: ShriIqbal Maennuddin ShaikhFor Respondent: Shri Veerabhadra S Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

hearing the registry informed that the appeal was filed with a delay of 1987 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and explained that due to lack of communication with the consultant, the appeal could not be pursued properly. Further, the wife of the assessee was suffering ... matter taken for adjudication. The Ld.DR had not made any strong objection against the condonation plea of the assesse. Accordingly, we condone the delay for 1987 days and the appeal is taken for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trader of readymade

ACIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Torane Ispat Udyog Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 4123/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt.Renu Jauhriacit-15(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Torane Ispat Udyog Room No. 480, Forth Floor, Private Limited Aayakar Bhawan, 49, Ground Floor, Cinewonder Mumbai-400020. Mall, Ghodbunder Road, Thane West, Mumbai-400607. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aacct9196K Appellant .. Respondent

Section 1Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

outset, it is seen that the appeal filed by the revenue is delayed by 47 days. Ld. AO has furnished an application for condonation of delay wherein it has been explained as under: “3. In this connection on perusal of the records it is found that the order

Gaurav Kataria, Gurugram vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad

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

ITA 4194/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mahfuzur Rahman, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 270A

Revenue objected to the above facts on record. 4. 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 filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal

Tarun Jain, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(4) Fbd, Faridabad

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

ITA 4193/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmantarun Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward 2 (4), House No.641, Sector 7B, Faridabad. Faridabad – 121 006 (Haryana). (Pan : Agepj5824D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 Date Of Order : 11.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal With A Delay Of 62 Days From The Date Of Appellate Order. He Submitted That On January 7, 2025, A Robbery Took Place At The Assessee’S Shop For Which An Fir Was Registered In Sector 8, Faridabad, A Copy Of The Same Is Placed On Record & This Unfortunate Incident Caused

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

Revenue did not object in condoning the 3. delay. We have heard both the counsels on the issue of condonation of delay. In 4. our considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before ... appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and filed grounds of appeal and detailed submissions. However, ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 10. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :- “1. That having

Mohammad Yousuf Daga, Chanapora vs. Income Tax Officer -Ward -1, Srinagar

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

ITA 219/ASR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Arshad Hussain Mir, C.A

Section 147Section 148Section 250

Unit, ITD u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, 1961 dated 21.05.2023. 2 I.T.A. No. 219/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 2. Condonation of Delay: It is noted by the registry that the appeal is belatedly filed by twelve days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation ... appellate proceedings , which resulted in delay of filing this appeal with a newly appointed counsel, belated by 12 days. He prays for condonation of delay. The Ld. DR has no objection. Considering the reasons stated we condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. Brief facts emerging are that

Smt. Tabasum Amin Ganie, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 217/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: PendingITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None

Section 144Section 250

order of the AO, Srinagar u/s 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 31.12.2019. 2 I.T.A. No. 217/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. Condonation of Delay: It is noted by the registry that the appeal is belatedly filed by 346 (three hundred and forty-six) days, and no application for condonation ... neither any adjournment has been filed nor the deficiency pointed out has been cured (even after six months) and no prayer for condonation of delay has been filed till date. 8. We further note that the assessment order has been passed ex-parte u/s 144 considering the SBN deposits

Rameez Raja Bhat, Bugam Batapora Chadoora Budgam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2 Srinagar, Silk Factory Road Rajbagh Srinagar

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

ITA 198/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None (Written submission)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 69A

Ward-2 Srinagar u/s 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 29.12.2019. 2 I.T.A. No. 198/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is filed with a delay of 338 (three hundred thirty-eight days). The assessee has filed ... application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit that neither any notices of hearing nor any copy of first appeal order has been received by the assessee and he is engaged in the business of purchase and sales of “jersy cows /Milch, and has no knowledge of computer systems

Chhedi Lal Gupta, Pratapgarh vs. The Income Tax Officer, Pratapgarh

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

ITA 144/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 253(3)Section 69A

time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application dated 04/08/2025, duly supported by an affidavit, for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit ... appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay in filing of this appeal

Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Bharuch

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

ITA 60/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.60/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta Vs. Ito, Prop. Of Aditya Infrastructure, Ward - 1(5), 139, Maher Nagar, Opp. Baps Bharuch Hospital, Adajan Gam Circle, Surat - 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adepm 4458 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

Section 194ASection 194CSection 2(24)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 68Section 69A

assessee submitted that the delay was not intentional and was beyond control of assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee requested to condone the delay the admit the appeal for hearing. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue opposed the prayer ... condonation of delay. He, however, submitted that the Bench may decide the issue as it thinks fit. 5. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and note that his old tax consultant had given his own e-mail address instead of assessee’s current e-mail address

Mohali Education Society, Mohali vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Chandigarh

Appeal stand dismissed as being not maintainable

ITA 511/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.511/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S Mohali Education Society Cit (Exemptions) बनाम/ Vs. Opp. H.No.652, Phase-X Chandigarh Mohali – 160062 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatm-6973-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Om Datt Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-11-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Rejection Of An Application (Seeking Condonation Of Delay In Filing Form 10B) As Filed By The Assessee U/S 119(2)(B) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21 Vide Impugned Order Dated 21-03-2025 As Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Ld. Cit-Dr, At The Outset, Pleaded That This Order Is Not An Appealable Order Before Tribunal In Terms

For Appellant: Shri Om Datt Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 119(2)(b)Section 253

Pronouncement : 10-11-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by rejection of an application (seeking condonation of delay in filing Form 10B) as filed by the assessee u/s 119(2)(b) for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 vide impugned order dated

Amrish Sanjay Bidaye, Navi Peth, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11, Pune

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

ITA 306/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.306/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Amrish Sanjay Bidaye, Vs. Acit, Circle-11, Abhiruchi, 272/2, Pune Tukaram Navale Path, Navi Peth, Pune 411 030 Maharashtra Pan : Axupb7299R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri SubrahmanyaFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kr. Singh

Section 143(3)Section 250

facts and circumstances of the case. 2 Amrish Sanjay Bidaye 3) The learned CIT(A) was not justified in condoning the delay in filing appeal that delay was due to lack of professional advice and beyond the control of the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case ... capital loss figure to Rs.1,58,10,832/-. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but on one hand did not condone the delay of 3961 days. However, he dealt with merits of the case confirming the action of AO. Assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal

Bhavana Ritesh Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5561/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Punit Jhabak, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 144BSection 147Section 250

observed that there is a delay of 127 days in filing the instant appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by a duly sworn affidavit, mainly stating that the assessee was unaware of the passing of the impugned order and came to know ... refuted the claim of the assessee and submitted that the assessee failed to demonstrate a plausible and reasonable cause for condonation of delay. The reasons stated by the assessee for condonation of delay, appears to be reasonable and plausible and unintentional and therefore for just and proper decision case