“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

Kannan Rajagopal, Kolapakkam vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2218/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2218/Chny/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Kannan Rajagopal, Income Tax Officer, Flat No.53, Phase-1, Maxworth Nagar, Inaternational Taxation Ward-1(2), Kolapakkam, Chennai. Tamil Nadu-600 122. [Pan: Agdpk6145P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Arv Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 147

delay of 226 days identified by the registry. It was argued that the affidavit of the assessee dated 10.02.2025 requesting for condonation of delay indicates that there was no sufficient cause was available with the assessee. It was contended that , even if the theory of accident is accepted, there

The Farmer Bank Staff Co-Operative Society Ltd, Fort, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chambers

ITA 5686/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Sushant Alme, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Assessee has not filed return of income in time, as per section 139(1) of the Act or has not filed any condonation of delay, as per board's circular No.13 of 2023 dated 26.06.2023 with respect to condonation of delay

Anjanna Chattopadhyay, Wadala vs. Income Tax Officer 15 1 4 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5009/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR.DR.)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 45

passed ex-parte order upholding the assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O and rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) was uploaded on the IT Portal. 9 That, the tax consultant Mr. Deepak Merchant, CA was a senior citizen ... ground of limitation. Aggrieved by such dismissal, the assessee has now preferred the present appeal before us along with a prayer for condonation of delay. 3. The Ld. DR argued & did not raise any strong objection to the submissions of the assessee. 4. We heard the rival submissions and considered

Ajinkyatara Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Koper Khairane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(1)(1), Vashi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 3292/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sushant AlmeFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR.DR.)

Section 12Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P

explained before the CIT(A). Considering this, the Ld.AR prayed for setting aside the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and prayed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 3 Ajinkyatara Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit 4. The Ld.DR argued, but related to condonation of delay ... dated 10th January 2022. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal on the technical ground of absence of sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Respectful reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajendrakumar Maneklal Shah

Shakuntala Devi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-3(5), Noida

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5709/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144Section 234Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 271ASection 69

time of hearing.” 3. The instant appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation of 260 days. An application seeking condonation of delay along with affidavit filed by the assessee are available on record, explaining the delay beyond her control in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Considering

Babubhai Kanjibhai Sakariya Legal Heir of Late Smt. Ujiben Kanjibhai Sakariya, Jetpur vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 185/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147

assessee, for assessment year 2016-17, is barred by limitation by 22 days. The assessee moved a petition requesting the Bench, to condone the delay. Learned Counsel for the assessee, has explained the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal stating that Late Smt. Ujiben Kanjibhai Sakariya left ... Late Smt. Ujiben Kanjibhai Sakariya 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. While deciding the prayer for condonation of delay, the court/appellate authority cannot ignore or give a go-by to the basic principle that

Kalpesh Chaturbhai Raiyani, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 145/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 143-145/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15-2016-17) Kalpesh Chaturbhai Raiyani The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 8-New Meghani Nagar Corner, Sahakar Vs. 1(1)(1), Main Road, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course Ring Rajkot - 360002 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aszpr8968H (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2025 : 04/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, J.M.: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15 – 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 05.06.2024/06.06.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, On 28.03.2022/ 29.03.2024. Ita No. 143-145/Rjt/2025 Kalpesh Chaturbhai Raiyani 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows (Ita No. 143- Rjt-25):

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69B

inform that there is a delay of 207 days in filling the appeal before this Tribunal. That the assessee moved an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal along with the affidavit, the relevant portion of the sad application is reproduced: “b. In the course of the appellate

Kalpesh Chaturbhai Raiyani, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 144/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69B

Kalpesh Chaturbhai Raiyani, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 143/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69B

Vishal Kumar, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO Ward-5 Yamunanagar, Yamunan Nagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 44A

assessment year. 2. The appeal is time barred by 215 days. A separate application-cum-affidavit has been filed for condonation of delay. After considering the submissions made in the said ITA 494/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 2 affidavit, delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The assessee

Matushree Parsanba Charitable Trust, Vadodara vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1340/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year N.A.

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 115TSection 12A

There is a delay of 201 days in filing the present appeal for which the assessee has given the affidavit for condonation of delay and the reason therein appears to be genuine, hence delay is condoned. 6. The A.R. requested the matter may be remanded back to the file

Manoj Suresh Tatooskar, Pune vs. Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1729/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

barred by limitation as the assessee has filed this appeal with a delay of 166 days. Assessee in support of its plea for condonation of delay has filed an Affidavit given by Mr. Kishor Krishnarao Bhagwat who looked after the tax matters of the assessee. On perusal of the Affidavit ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) I condone the delay of 166 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee is that ld.CIT(A) erred

Kalyani Koley, Howrah vs. CIT(A), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 253(3)

file an appeal before this Hon ble Tribunal against the said appellate order dated November 1, 2023 along with an application for condonation of delay. Mr. Kuntal Kumar Koley, during the said conference held on January 14, 2025, instructed the said consultant to file response in respect of the penalty ... justice. 13. This application is made bonafide and in the interest of justice. In the circumstances, your petitioner most humbly prays for- (a) Condonation of delay of 394 days in preferring the appeal against the order dated November 1, 2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless

DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata vs. National Engineering Industries Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1475/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1475/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata Vs M/S National Engineering Industries Ltd. 11Th Floor Birla Building, West Bengal-700001 Pan No. :Aaacn 9969 L (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Vidhi Ladia, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Dung Dung, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22, Dated 08.04.2025 For The Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. Appeal Of The Revenue Is Barred By 8 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application Supported With Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay. Considering The Affidavit Of The Revenue, We Condone The Delay Of 8 Days In Filing The Appeal & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. The Only Issue In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Allowing Deduction U/S.80Jjaa Of The Act To The Assessee. The Tax Effect In Respect Of The Said Ground Is Less Than Rs.60 Lakhs. Ld. Sr. Dr Submitted That The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Maintainable In View Of Exceptional Clause (I) To Paragraph 3.1 Of The Cbdt Circular No.5/2024, Dated 15.03.2024. A Perusal Of The Said Clause (I) Shows That The Exemption

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi Ladia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Dung Dung, Sr. DR

Section 80J

revenue is barred by 8 days. In this regard, the revenue has filed an application supported with affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. Considering the affidavit of the revenue, we condone the delay of 8 days in filing the appeal and the appeal is admitted for hearing

Deb Prasanna Choudhury, Kolkata vs. ADIT/DCIT (It) - 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2199/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

when he arrived in India due to medical conditions, could not file appeal before the Tribunal within time. After perusing the petition for condonation of delay filed by the assessee we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that the assessee had I.T.A. No.: 2199/KOL/2024 Assessment Year ... Prasanna Choudhury. a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(Appeal

Gs Mahanagar Co-Operative Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle -1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1867/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: BEFOREHON'BLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kukreja Adv. &For Respondent: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)

There is a delay of 147 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed the petition for condonation of delay. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause ... following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay of 147 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The ld. AR submitted that the reason

Gsma Ltd, Usa vs. ACIT Circle Intl Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2446/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2446/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Gsma Ltd., 1000 Abernathy Road, Suite 450, Atalanta, Untied State Of America ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaecg-1610-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 1(3)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By: Shri P.P Singh, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 06.04.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Issued Defect Memo Stating That The Appeal Is Time Barred By 1076 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons For Delay In Filing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri P.P Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

remotely from the USA. 3.1. We have heard the submissions made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and have examined the application of condonation of delay. The impugned order was passed during Covid period on 06.04.2021. The Hon’ble Apex Court suo moto after taking cognizance of the hardship cause ... reasons stated in the affidavit supporting the application for delay in condonaiton of appeal and the reasons appears to be bonafide. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The facts of the case in brief as emanating from records are: The assessee company was incorporated

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-49(1), New Delhi vs. Suresh Kumar Goyal, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3173/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Goyal, Acit, Circle-49(1), A-1/102, Ground Floor, New Delhi Janak Puri, Delhi Pan: Aaapg4996R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80G

surmise and conjecture and is totally busted in the face of facts and circumstances of case and is liable to be deleted.” 5. Condonation of delay in filling the appeal: The appellant has also petitioned for condonation of delay in filling the appeal, stating as under: Appeal was supposed

Usman Vali Patel, Bharuch Gujarat vs. Ward 1(2), Income Tax Officer, Bharuch

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

ITA 183/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.183/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Usman Vali Patel, Vs. Ito, A-14 Assd Park, Near Khwaja Ward – 1(2), Township, Bharuch - 392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aykpp8165B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Krutarth Desai, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/11/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 69A

decision Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. vs. ACIT, 157 taxmann.com 416 (SC). He has prayed to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merit. ITA No.183/SRT/2025/AY.2011-12 Usman Vali Patel 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative ... assessee with respect to the procedure and formalities of filing appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay are reasonable and the same would constitute sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal

Sh. Krishna Kumar Poddar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 743/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri

Section 250Section 270A

delayed by 339 days. The assessee has filed an application submitting therein the reasons for delay in filing the appeal and prayed for condonation of delay. In support of the application, the assessee has also filed an Affidavit dated 3rd May, 2025 for condonation of delay, which is being reproduced ... M/s.Kalani & Co., Jaipur for filing the appeal, he suggested me to file the appeal before Hon’ble ITAT along with a request to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly the appeal is now filed by me. 8. That the facts stated in Para 1 to 7 abopve