“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

Mr. Anil, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward-1(10, Kochi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 614 &

ITA 614/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Vishnu Das KFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271A

totality of the circumstances mentioned above, the learned CIT(Appeals) may be pleased to consider the prayer of the appellant in granting the condonation for delay of 311 days in appearing before your learned self forj ustice and equity. It is a trite position of law, crystallized ... Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2017] 86 taxmann.com 98 (Bombay) was pleased to condone a delay of 2984 days when the Assessee showed bonafide reasons for not preferring the Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Ala Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 581/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ala Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd . .......... Appellant Santhipuram P.O., Kodungallur, Thrissur 680668 [Pan: Aadaa5833H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2(1), Thrissur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Jojo, C.A., Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 17.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members & Accepting Deposits From Members. The Return Of 2 Ala Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income For Ay 2018-19 Was Filed On 28.12.2018 Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The National E- Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 15.04.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 72,95,927/-. While Doing So, The Ao Denied Deduction U/S. 80P In Respect Of Interest Income 72,95,927/- Derived From District Co-Operative Bank.

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, C.A., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 119BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80P

appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee submits before us that application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was filed with the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax which is pending disposal. Therefore, the appeal may be restored to the file ... section 80AC of the Act. There is no dispute about the applicability of provisions of section 80AC of the Act. The power to condone the delay in filing the return of income is conferred upon the Pr.CIT u/s. 119B of the Act. The Tribunal is not vested with such powers

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur vs. The Csb Bank Ltd, Thrissur

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 542/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Modi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 144BSection 147Section 250

appeal preferred by the Revenue was delayed by 60 days. We have head both the sides on application for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Collector of Land Assessment Year 2014-2015 Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others AIR 1987 1353 (SC), held that ... would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. As per the affidavit filed by the Revenue in support of the application seeking condonation of delay, the delay was neither intentional nor due to negligence but was occasion on account multiple charges with heavy work load being handled

Sayegh Paint Factories India Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. Corporate Cir 2(1), Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 451/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr.AR

Section 144B(6)(vii)Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

that the delay in filing the Audit Report was not condoned. The Income-tax Act, 1961 does not contain any provision mandating prior condonation of delay before furnishing a tax audit report under Section 44AB. 8- The delay in filing audit report is legitimate, for reasons beyond the control ... issuance of the notice u/s. 148, the assessee having known that the return was not filed in time, had filed an application to condone the delay for filing the return u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act to the PCIT, Ernakulam on 01/10/2021. Before PCIT had condoned the said delay

Shri Jitendra Behl, Sriganganagar vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1080/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mrs. Raksha Birla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

payment of appropriate taxes. Therefore, in the factual matrix of the present case, we find that there exists sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each ... support of the application, the assessee has also filed an Affidavit duly sworn in before the Notary, Public Jaipur dated 21.01.2025 for condonation of delay, which is being reproduced hereunder :- “Affidavit in support of condonation of delay in filing of appeal I Jitendra Behl S/o Brij Kumar Behl, aged

District Co-Opertive Sugar Cane Supply Ltd., Bareilly vs. ITO Range-1(1), Bareilly

In the result, in the combined result in ITA

ITA 578/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80P

transpired from the record that the present appeal is barred by limitation for 25 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. It is stated on behalf of the assessee that the delay was caused because the brother of the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee ... brought any material to rebut the averments made by the assessee. Therefore, considering the facts of the present case, we hereby condone the delay of 25 days and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 6. The assessee in this appeal has raised multiple grounds but only effective ground

District Co-Opertive Sugar Cane Supply Ltd, Bareilly vs. ITO Range-1(2), Bareilly

ITA 577/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80P

Shri Babu Lal, Lucknow vs. DCIT, Range-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 203/LKW/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.203/Lkw/2020 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 Babu Lal V. Dcit, Range-6 205, Amar Shaheed Path, 3Rd Floor, P. K. Complex, Aurangabad Jagir, Lucknow- 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan 226009. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Afdpl7463G अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: None प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27 10 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 10 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

basis of materials available on records. 3. The present appeal is barred by 23 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. For the sake of clarity, the relevant contents of application are reproduced hereinbelow: - “1. That the appellant-assessee received through ... limitation stood extended. We, therefore, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Civil Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020, hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for hearing on merits. 5. The only effective ground is with regard to the confirmation

Krunal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1285/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Chintan Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 253Section 270A(9)Section 5

appeal is delayed for filing by 338 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay stating as under: “1. That the appellant has filed the accompanying appeal under section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of CIT (A) dated 24th April, 2024. That ... case on merits and would suffer irreparable loss if the delay is not condoned. That the Hon'ble Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal if it is satisfied that the delay was due to sufficient cause. Reliance is placed on various judicial precedents, including

Suresh Kumar Agarwal, Gangtok vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 3(2), Gangtok

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

ITA 1571/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1571/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Suresh Kumar Agarwal,……………..…....……Appellant Chno 11(2), Alfa Building, Mg Marg, Gangtok-737101, Sikkim [Pan:Atnpa4913E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok-737101, Sikkim

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 69A

days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed a condonation petition before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 444 days 1 Suresh Kumar Agarwal mentioning that the delay occurred due to being a layman with no understanding of income tax laws ... appeal, due to that there was a delay of 444 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within

Rajpal Gupta, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward - 47(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1276/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1276/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Rajpal Gupta,…………………………………..……Appellant 103/25, Foreshore Road, Shibpur, Howrah-711102, West Bengal [Pan:Adtpg4725E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-47(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Avijit Ghosal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 271ASection 69C

appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed an affidavit and 1 Rajpal Gupta condonation petition before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 194 days mentioning that the delay occurred due to different types of severe illness, which affected memory seriously and stated that ... appeal, due to that there was a delay of 194 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within

Shree Durga Trading Co., Kolkata vs. ITO TDS Ward 3(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1243/KOL/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1243/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Shree Durga Trading Co.,………..………….,…Appellant 67/25, Strand Road, Kolkata, Beadon Street, S.O. Kolkata-700006 [Pan:Aalfs9474P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Tds, Ward-3(3), Kolkata 10B, Middleton Road, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Sonel Agrawal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri S.B. Chakraborty, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 200A

before the Tribunal. However, the Partner of the assessee-Company filed an affidavit dated 5th June, 2025 before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 37 days mentioning that the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) could not serve physically upon the appellant and the said order ... appeal, due to that there was a delay of 37 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay in the appeal. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing

Lakshmiammal Progressive Educational Trust, Komarapalayam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exmeptions, Salem

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

ITA 2193/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Srikrishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

There is a delay of 36 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal and also prayed for condonation of delay. On perusal of the reason stated ... view that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, I condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee reads as follows

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Jayapriya Company, Chennai

ITA 1899/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

noted that, the Revenue's appeal in ITA No.1899/Chny/2025, is delayed by `2′ days, for which, the DCIT has filed the affidavit for condonation of delay. To this, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, we consider it prudent to condone the delay

Renukamba, Bangalore Urben vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 3(3)(1), Bangalore, Bengaluru Urban

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

ITA 1847/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P R Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

passed on 28.12.2023 whereas the appeal is filed on 23.8.2025. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with Affidavit. It is stated that the assessee is aged about 64 years, deriving income from salary and house property. The assessee has one, Mr. K. Shivakumar ... filing of the appeal. Thus, the delay in filing of the appeal has been because of sufficient reasons and hence I condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. 7. I find that the assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income

Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Bengaluru vs. Mohammed Farooq Kanana, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1509/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21 Ito, Vs. Mr. Mohammed Farooq Kanana, 6 9Th Cross, H Siddaiah Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027, Karnataka. Pan : Abvpm 1212 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Thirumala Naidu, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Thirumala Naidu, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 147Section 250

appeal filed by the Revenue is delayed by 38 days. The Revenue has filed condonation petition which is as under: “Request to condone the delay of 38 days in filing appeal to ITAT in case of Mr. Mohammed Faroog Kanana, PAN ABVPM1212A, AY - 2020-21. Kind reference is invited ... office was also engaged in furnishing of statistical reports such as GEP reports, Due Diligence Reports, DO Reports, Rectifications, OGEs, Audit, CPGRAMS, Condonation of Delay, RTI applications and time bound other reports. 8. Unavoidable Circumstances Leading to Delay The delay of 38 days in filing the appeal was attributable

Dhanbir Suri, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5370/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosaina.Ys: 2017-18

Section 250

noticed that there is a delay of 2. 941 days in filing present appeal and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under: I, Dhanbir Suri, son of Singh Suri, residing at 705, Bhumiraj Meadows ... Maharashtra do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows: 2 Dhanbir Suri,. Mumbai. 1. I, Shri Dhanbir Suri, hereby submit this application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. That, my case was selected for Scrutiny based on the information available with

Pinesh Arvindkumar Jain HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4980/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalpinesh Arvindkumar Jain Vs. Ito, Ward – 20(2)(1) Huf Piramal Chambers 706, Sumer Tower No.1, Mumbai – 400013. Love Late, Mumbai – 400010 Pan/Gir No. Aalhp8561N (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 271A

delay of 189 days in filing the present appeal and in this regard an 2 Pinesh Arvindkumar Jain HUF, Mumbai. application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under: 1. Above appeal has been filed by the assessee before ... justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admitted the appeal. 5. We also noticed that assessee was ex-parte before

Wilfred Felix D Souza, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Thane

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4529/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy Swilfred Felix D’Souza, Income Tax Officer 2(1), Flat No.101, Sector No.10-B-25, Thane Vs. Shanti Nagar, Mira Road (E), Distt. Thane -401 107 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Ancpd 6821D

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. AR

Section 147

thereof, however, learned First Appellate Authority was not convinced with the reasons shown for delay. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal in-limine without condoning the delay. 4. Having considered rival submissions, we find, before the First Appellate Authority, while seeking condonation of delay, the assessee had explained that during

Sh Raj Kumar, Haryana vs. ITO Ward -5, Rohtak

Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 5449/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Raj Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward-5, 1107/34, Vijay Nagar, Rohtak Rohtak-124001 Haryana (Pan: Bfypk0435H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

delay of 125 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. For this purpose, the assessee has filed the application for condonation of delay due to the fact that Accountant Sh. Jogender Kumar of the applicant had inadvertently omitted to notice the uploading of the aforesaid order on the income