“condonation of delay”

Mukesh Kumar, Auraiya vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(4), Auraiya

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that assessee has not filed any application seeking condonation of delay. He submitted that ld. CIT (A) was unjustified in refusing to condone the delay ignoring the facts of the case and the material argument of the assessee that the assessee ... also dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeal. In this regard, ld. AR submitted that assessee has submitted application of condonation of delay along with affidavit in support. Thus, he submitted that the assessee has sufficient and bona fide cause and the delay, if any, is neither intentional

Mukesh Kumar, Auraiya vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(4), Auraiya

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that assessee has not filed any application seeking condonation of delay. He submitted that ld. CIT (A) was unjustified in refusing to condone the delay ignoring the facts of the case and the material argument of the assessee that the assessee ... also dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeal. In this regard, ld. AR submitted that assessee has submitted application of condonation of delay along with affidavit in support. Thus, he submitted that the assessee has sufficient and bona fide cause and the delay, if any, is neither intentional

Ekkadam Seva Sansthan, Sriganganagar vs. The CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

pointed out that the present appeal is barred by limitation by 20 days for which the assessee had filed the condonation application for condoning the delay. 3. Ld. DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay. 4. After considering the condonation application filed by the assessee in the present appeal ... condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Exemptions

Laxman Singh Solanki (Firm), Pali vs. ITO, Pali

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

multiple e-mail addresses and other partners, hence the plea of illness could not be accepted as “sufficient cause”. He further submitted that condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion and can be allowed only upon proof of diligence and absence of negligence. Reliance was placed on: Balwant ... record, and considered the judicial precedents cited. The short question before us is whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 129 days in filing the appeal. 8.1 On an overall appreciation of the facts, we are of the considered opinion that the approach

Umrav Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1, Sri Ganganagar

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

provisions of section 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal by the Appellant. 6. That, the humble Appellant may be allowed to add, amend or delete any grounds of appeal ... remaining long gap. Holding that the assessee had failed to establish “sufficient cause” under section 249(3), the CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the additions on merits. The specific finding of the CIT(A) in para 2.9 of the order

Umrav Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1, Sri Ganganagar

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

provisions of section 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal by the Appellant. 6. That, the humble Appellant may be allowed to add, amend or delete any grounds of appeal ... remaining long gap. Holding that the assessee had failed to establish “sufficient cause” under section 249(3), the CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the additions on merits. The specific finding of the CIT(A) in para 2.9 of the order

Umrav Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1, Sri Ganganagar

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

provisions of section 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal by the Appellant. 6. That, the humble Appellant may be allowed to add, amend or delete any grounds of appeal ... remaining long gap. Holding that the assessee had failed to establish “sufficient cause” under section 249(3), the CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the additions on merits. The specific finding of the CIT(A) in para 2.9 of the order

Kaushaliya Devi Dhoot, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

advised to file an appeal as against the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, a liberal approach may be taken for condonation of delay since assessee's application for rectification of the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act has been filed within time and same

Apex Irrigation, Rajkot vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

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

outset, that the appeal filed late by 461 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The relevant para of the application for delay is as under; “1. The Deponent APEX IRRIGATION is the PARTNERSHIP FIRM of the firm above ... sufficient cause" for not Apex Irrigation presenting appeal within prescribed time. In the interest of justice, we take a judicious view and we condoned the delay in filing appeal by 461 days 7. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing, importing

Om Ceramic Industries, Morbi vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 1, Morbi

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Revenue invited my attention to the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), which is ex-parte order, wherein the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The Ld.DR submitted that there is no discussion on merit by the Ld.CIT(A), therefore, matter ... fresh adjudication. 4. I have heard Ld. DR for the revenue, and noted that Ld.CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue on condonation of delay, where 770 days of delay were not condoned by the Ld.CIT(A), however, the effective delay in filing the appeal before the learned

Miteshkumar Dayaljibhai Pabari, Bhatiya vs. Assistant Commissioner/ Deputy Commissioner, Rajkot

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 420 /Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2020-21) Miteshkumar Dayaljibhai Pabari Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner, International C/O Dayaljibhai Pabari, Shreeji Catlery Vs. Taxation Rajkot, Stores, Main Bajar, Bhatiya, Devbhoomi Dwarka, Room No. 312, Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Dwarka-361315(Gujarat) Cinema, M.G. Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bctpp7290M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

assessee, as the objections were filed after expiry of 30 days, and the assessee has also not filed any petition for condonation of delay before the Hon’ble DRP-2, therefore, Hon’ble DRP rejected the objections filed by the assessee, observing as follows (For the sake of convenience ... assessee did not file the objections within 30 days from the date of draft order, therefore, the Hon’ble DRP did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee, in limini, stating that the objections were filed by the assessee after the expiry of 30 days

Ravibhai Mansukhbhai Bhalara, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO WD 2(1)(1), RKT, Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.304/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Ravibhai Mansukhbhai Bhalara Vs. Income Tax Officer, Amin Marg, Vidhya Kunj Society, Ito Ward 2 (1)(1), T-Office, New Rajkot(Gujarat) - 360001 Aayakar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Rajkot(Gujarat) - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Avqpb6946D (Appellant) (Respondent)

appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 40 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone of delay. The learned Counsel adverted my attention to the reasons for condonation of delay before this Tribunal and urged for a benign view and sought condonation ... days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, learned DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. A perusal of the reasons and sufficient cause explained by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, gives me an impression of existence of mitigating circumstances

Manoj Kumar Das, Begusarai vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: 19/07/2025. The Appeal Is Delayed By Around 37 Days. 4. That The Assessee States That The Reason For Delay Is That The Assessee Is Suffering From Hiv Aids & Is Constantly Under Treatment. Copy Of Medical Treatment Is Enclosed.

filing of the said appeal. The assessee has requested for condoning the same as under: “1. That this is an application for condonation of delay in the filing of the instant appeal. 2. That the petitioner states that the impugned order was passed on 19/05/2025 by the Id Commissioner

Urmilaben Thakordas Sopariwala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Surat

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Urmilaben Thakordas Ito Sopariwala, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. New Civil 8/743, Hanuman Char Rasta, Vs. Hospital Majuragate, Gopipura, Surat-395001. Surat-395001. Pan No. Aprps 5313 J Appellant Respondent

Counsel for the assessee drawn out attention Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drawn out attention to the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The to the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The to the application for condoning the delay ... having a strong case on merit. In support of the In support of the 3 Urmilaben Thakordas Spariwala Urmilaben Thakordas Spariwala application seeking condonation of delay, the learned Counsel application seeking condonation of delay, the learned Counsel application seeking condonation of delay, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon the affidavit

Kirti Karsandas Nayak, Umbergaon vs. ITO Ward-5, Vapi

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Kirti Karsandas Nayak, Ito Ward-5, Plot No. 244/28, Gidc, Fortune Square, Chala Road, Umbergaon-396171. Vs. Vapi-396191. Pan No. Abbpn 3355 M Appellant Respondent

view constitutes a sufficient and bona fide cause, we are persuaded view constitutes a sufficient and bona fide cause, we are persuaded to condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice. The delay to condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice. The delay to condone the delay ... first consider the assessee’s restored to his file with the direction to first consider the assessee’s application for condon application for condonation of delay in the light of the facts and ation of delay in the light of the facts and evidence to be adduced

Raghunandan Impex Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-2(1)(1), Surat

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Raghunandan Impex Pvt. Ltd., Ito Ward 2(1)(1), 6/2037, Office No. 205, 2Nd Floor, Room No. 222, Papadwala Building, Bhoja Bhai Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Majura Gate, Surat-395003. Surat-395001. Pan No. Aaecr 5688 Q Appellant Respondent

case and in Law, Ld 3.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal of CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal of CIT(A) erred ... condoning the delay in filing of the appeal of 335 days, though there exist bonafide reasons that had 335 days, though there exist bonafide reasons that had 335 days, though there exist bonafide reasons that had precluded the appellant to file t precluded the appellant to file the appeal

Sumitlal, Surat vs. ITO, Surat

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Sumitlal, Ito 101-B/2, Sanskrut Flats Umra, Aayakar Bhavan, Bharthana, Vs. Surat-395007. Surat-395007 Pan No. Acxpl 1238 Q Appellant Respondent

governing of section 249(3) of the Act and the principles governing of section 249(3) of the Act and the principles governing condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the condonation of delay under section ... appellant cannot be considered as the Therefore, the claim of the appellant cannot be considered as the reasonable and sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the reasonable and sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the reasonable and sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing

Bachraj Chhotelal Mehta, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Bachraj Chhotelal Mehta, Ito Ward-2(3)(8), C-3, 3Rd Floor, Antwerp Park, 619, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Apartment, Kansara Sheri, Vs. Gate, Mahidharpura, Surat-395001. Surat-395003. Pan No. Afrpm 7809 R Appellant Respondent

peculiar facts and circumstances of the present be condoned in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 3.1 The law on condonation of delay is now well settled. The law on condonation of delay is now well settled. The law on condonation of delay is now well settled ... deliberate inaction or conscious disregard of the process of law. Bachraj Chhotelal Mehta 6 3.4 Accordingly, we are inclined to condone the delay in the filing Accordingly, we are inclined to condone the delay in the filing Accordingly, we are inclined to condone the delay in the filing

Indravadan Gamanlal Gandhi, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(1)(1), Surat

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.142/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Indravadan Gamanlal Gandhi बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Vs. At: Areth, Post. Areth, Tal: Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Surat, Mandvi, Surat-394 010 Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpn 9673 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Shaunak Zaveri, Ca राज" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025

barred by 69 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the assessee has not received any notices of hearing issued ... notices were sent in a wrong e-mail id., which has been stated in the affidavit filed by the assessee for the condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Since the notices issued u/s 250 of the Act were never received by the assessee, there was no question