“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

Ravinder Singh, Ferozepur Cantt vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 574/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ld.Cit (Appeals) & Even Passing Of The Final Order. That The Assessee Did Not Receive The Copy Of The Order In Physical Form. That The Order, Sent On E-Mail Of The Consultant, Was Not Forwarded By Him To The Assessee. The Ld. Counsel Has Further Brought My Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Cit (Appeals) To Submit That The Same Is An Ex-Parte Order Of The Cit (Appeals). He Has Further Submitted That Even A Perusal Of The Impugned Order Also Reveals That The Same Has Not Been Passed By The Ld.Cit (Appeals) On Merits, Rather The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarana, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur,Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 115B

assessment year. ITA 574/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 2 2. The appeal is time barred by 198 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed wherein it has been pleaded that the concerned counsel for the assessee did not inform the assessee of the dates of hearing before

Purna Chander Ragam, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above observations

ITA 984/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

interest of justice be condoned. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative did not seriously object to the seeking of condonation of delay involved in the present appeal. 4. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both the parties qua the reasons leading to the delay in filing ... application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, condone the delay of 33 days involved in the filing of the present appeal. 5. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income

Federation of Ap Cooperative Urban Banks and Credit Societies Limited Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 464/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.464/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Federation Of Ap Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Urban Banks Ward 9(1) & Credit Societies Ltd. Hyderabad Hyd, Hyderabad Pan:Aaaaf7350F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr. DR

there is a delay of 290 days in filing of the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the same. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee- society had filed ... application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, taking a judicial and liberal approach, we condone the delay of 290 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds

Shri Natarajan Somasundaram, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

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

ITA 788/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.788/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Natarajan Somasundaram, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, E-105, Periyar Vegetable Market, Non-Corporate Ward 8(2), Koyambedu, Chennai 600 092. Chennai. [Pan:Aajps6303B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.10.2023 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 443 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, In The Interest Of Justice, We Condone The Delay Of 450 Days By Imposing Cost

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 24Section 32

year 2018-19. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 443 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, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay

Amaan Sadiq, Rajasthan vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5553/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Bleasstt. Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Triq Nafees, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

relating to assessment year 2018-19. 2. At the time of hearing, it is noted that assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 86 days stating therein that due to unavoidable family issues which were beyond his control, the assessee was not able to file the appeal

Om Narain Sharma, New Delhi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-45(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2435/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaom Narain Sharma, Vs. Ito, Ward 45 (1), A – 21,Exin, D.K. Road, Delhi. Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi – 110 059. (Pan : Dflps0932B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arpit Gaur, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date Of Order : 07.11.2025 Order 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 2015-16. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That There Was A Delay Of 153 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit (A) & The Ld. Cit (A) Dismissed The Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal On The Ground That Assessee Has Failed To Explain The Delay Of 153 Days With Material Evidence On Day-To-Day Basis.He Submitted That Ld. Cit (A) Was Unjustified In Refusing To Condone The Delay Ignoring

For Appellant: Shri Arpit Gaur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147

there was a delay of 153 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the ground that assessee has failed to explain the delay of 153 days with material evidence ... basis.He submitted that ld. CIT (A) was unjustified in refusing to condone the delay ignoring 2 the facts of the case and the material argument of the assessee that the assessee tends to gain nothing by filing the appeal late and the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate.Thus

Laljibhai Dudabhai Bhuva, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Rajkot.

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

ITA 501/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.501/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Digant Kyada, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 39 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone of delay. Learned Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons of delay, stating that as soon as the appellate order was received by the consultant, the consultant ... which may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice. However, learned DR for the revenue, opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. I have heard the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, I condone the delay and admit

Kanatalaw Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Rajkot (Amreli) vs. The ITO Ward - 3 (1) (4) Amreli, Amreli

ITA 201/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.200 & 201/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2018-19 & 2019-20 Kanatalaw Seva Sahkari Mandli Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 3(1)(4), Amreli बनाम/ Kanatalaw, Savarkundla, Vs Amreli - 364515 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfk8797L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Written Submission राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-DR

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 80P

assessee in ITA No.201/Rjt/2025 is also barred by limitation by 147 days. In these two appeals, the assessee has not filed petition for condonation of delay, despite repeated reminders. Therefore, the Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that these two appeals of the assessee should be dismissed on account ... delay in filing appeals. That is, the delay should not be condoned, as the assessee did not file any petition for condonation of delay in both the cases. The Ld. DR for the Revenue also submitted written submissions before me, which are reproduced below: “In this case, due date

Kanatalaw Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Rajkot (Amreli) vs. The ITO Ward - 3 (1) (4) Amreli, Amreli

ITA 200/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-DR

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 80P

Harwinder Singh, Sangrur vs. ITO Ward Sangrur, Sangrur

Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 414/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Cajla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT,Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

report of the Registry, the appeal is time barred by 294 days. A separate application has been filed for condonation of delay, wherein, it has been pleaded that the assessee did not come to know about the notices/date of hearing before the ld.CIT (Appeals). It has been pleaded that

Harmeet Singh, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Shimla, Shimla

Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 413/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhinav Bizwaria, Advocate and Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT,Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

report of the Registry, the appeal is time barred by 355 days. A separate application has been filed for condonation of delay, wherein, it has been pleaded that the assessee did not come to know about the notices/date of hearing before the ld.CIT (Appeals). It has been pleaded that

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Late Khodaji Ranchhodji Thakor Legal Heir Narendakumar Khodaji Thakor, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed

ITA 948/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.948/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito Late Khodaji Ranchhodji Ward-4(2)(1) बनाम/ Thakor V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Legal Heir Narendrakumar Khodaji Thakor Ahmedabad – 382 481 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afwpt 1453 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 24/02/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-2018. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250

Delhi, on 03.10.2023 by the legal heir of the deceased assessee, Shri Narendra Khodaji Thakor. The appeal was delayed, and an application for condonation of delay was filed, explaining that the assessee had expired on 21.03.2017 due to liver failure, much before the initiation of the reassessment proceedings ... legal heir consulted a tax professional and filed the appeal. Considering the reasons and in the interest of substantial justice, the CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for adjudication. In the appeal, the legal heir submitted that the assessment order passed under section

Malini Jignesh Doshi, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 755/AHD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

Appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend and withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal.” Application for condonation of delay: 3. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 313 days in filing the present appeal along-with an Affidavit. The assessee has submitted that ... that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to circumstances beyond the assessee’s control, we find sufficient cause to condone the delay. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji

Jayeshbhai Gordhanbhai Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

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

ITA 71/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.71/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jayeshbhai Gordhanbhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ Kishan Cowk Ward-1(3)(1) V/S. Piplav, Anand – 388 460 Petlad – 388 450 Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bixpp 2069 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Darshan Belani, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 29/09/2022 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Hon’Ble Cit(A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case By Upholding The Addition Amounting To Rs.23.30,500/- Made As Unexplained Investments In Case Of The Appellant For Ay 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Reserves The Right To Add/Alter Or Amend Any Of The Ground Of Appeal.” Jayeshbhai Gordhanbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Belani, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 250Section 253(5)

appellant reserves the right to add/alter or amend any of the ground of appeal.” Jayeshbhai Gordhanbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2011-12 Condonation of delay 3. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 771 days in filing of the present appeal. The assessee has filed ... application for condonation of delay along with an Affidavit, wherein it has been submitted the order of the learned CIT(A), Delhi, was passed on 29.09.2022, but the assessee did not receive the physical copy of the said order through post or courier. Further, it has been explained that

Axiomatic Itech Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 191/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Application for condonation of delay of days in filing of the present appeal: 6. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 545 days in filing ... present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 545 days in filing of the present appeal along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. We have carefully considered the submissions made in the application and perused the supporting affidavit placed on record

Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4) Now Ward- 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 159/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798 (SC) and CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773 (P&H), and held that condonation of delay can only be granted when sufficient and bona fide cause is shown, which was absent in the present case. The CIT(A) held that ... strictly and that the delay of several years cannot be condoned merely on general or vague grounds. Accordingly, the CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine, without adjudicating the matter on merits. It was also noted that a similar delay existed in the penalty

Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4) Now Ward- 1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 158/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Deputy Commission of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Suraj Finvest Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2020/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2020/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2019-2020) Acit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Vs M/S Suraj Finvest Private Ltd. 687, Anandpur, Em By Pass East Kolkata-700107 Pan No. :Aabce 8702 H (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.K.Patodia, Advocate & Ms. Sonal Agarwal, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-9, Delhi, Dated 30.10.2024. 2. The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Filed Belatedly By 244 Days. In This Regard, The Department Has Filed Application Supported By An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Sufficient Reasons Stated In The Affidavit By The Department, The Delay Of 244 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue Stands Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. At The Outset, We Found That The Tax Effect In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Below Rs.60 Lakhs, Therefore, The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Not Maintainable In View Of The Circular No.9/2024 Dated 17.09.2024. Consequently, The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Stands Dismissed On Account Of Low Tax Effect.

For Appellant: Shri R.K.Patodia, Advocate and Ms. Sonal Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

appeal of the revenue is filed belatedly by 244 days. In this regard, the department has filed application supported by an affidavit for condonation of delay. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the sufficient reasons stated in the affidavit by the department, the delay of 244 days

Pramod Devi Maheshwari, Pollock Street vs. Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhavan Poorva

ITA 1995/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Your Hon'Ble Tribunal Against The Appellate Order Dated 17.042025 Passed By The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac 2. The Said Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Statutory Period Of 60 Days, Which Expired On 16.06.2025, Due To Severe & Unforeseen Medical Reasons Which Are Detailed In The Accompanying Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. 3. The Delay Was Caused Solely Due To A Medical Emergency Involving Acute Hypertensive Crisis, Spondylosis & Nerve Pain That Left Me Incapacitated & Unable To Manage My Legal Affairs For A Significant Period. The Delay Is Entirely Unintentional & Bona Fide. 4. I Have Enclosed All Relevant Supporting Documents, Including Medical Certificates & Doctor'S Advice, As Annexure-A To The Affidavit.

Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

period of 60 days, which expired on 16.06.2025, due to severe and unforeseen medical reasons which are detailed in the accompanying Affidavit for Condonation of Delay. 3. The delay was caused solely due to a medical emergency involving acute Hypertensive crisis, spondylosis, and nerve pain that left me incapacitated ... Memorandum of Appeal. In light of the facts submitted, I earnestly pray that your Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to: Kindly condone the delay in filing the appeal. Admit the accompanying appeal for a hearing on its merits.” 1.1 Considering the reasons given in the said petition, we condone

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Acqueon Technologies Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 2786/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2786/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & C.O. No. 7/Chny/2025 [In Ita No. 2786/Chny/2024] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Acqueon Technologies Private Income Tax, Limited, 4/600 & 4/197, Dr. Vsi Estate Phase Ii, 7Th Street, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. Tiruvanmiyur S.O., Chennai 600 041. [Pan:Aaaci0947F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate & Ms. Sonali Kothari, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 30 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons.

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

year 2014-15. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 30 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. 2 I.T.A. No.2786/Chny/24 & CO No. 7/Chny/25 Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find