← All Phrases

“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

Shri. G K Ravi, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

ITA 2267/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

hospital and soon he will file the appeal. Later on, 25.11.2024 he filed all the appeals and also made a request for condonation of delay. He therefore says that there is no delay in filing of the appeals and all these appeals should have been treated as filed ... attend business affairs and hence delay may be condoned. This was the cause shown by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay. 12. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) fixed the case for hearing on several days, notices were sent to the assessee. The assessee relied upon

Shri. G K Ravi, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

ITA 2266/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Si. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

hospital and soon he will file the appeal. Later on, 25.11.2024 he filed all the appeals and also made a request for condonation of delay. He therefore says that there is no delay in filing of the appeals and all these appeals should have been treated as filed ... attend business affairs and hence delay may be condoned. This was the cause shown by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay. 12. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) fixed the case for hearing on several days, notices were sent to the assessee. The assessee relied upon

Shri. G K Ravi, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

ITA 2265/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

hospital and soon he will file the appeal. Later on, 25.11.2024 he filed all the appeals and also made a request for condonation of delay. He therefore says that there is no delay in filing of the appeals and all these appeals should have been treated as filed ... attend business affairs and hence delay may be condoned. This was the cause shown by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay. 12. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) fixed the case for hearing on several days, notices were sent to the assessee. The assessee relied upon

Shri. G. K Ravi, Bangalore vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

ITA 2264/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

hospital and soon he will file the appeal. Later on, 25.11.2024 he filed all the appeals and also made a request for condonation of delay. He therefore says that there is no delay in filing of the appeals and all these appeals should have been treated as filed ... attend business affairs and hence delay may be condoned. This was the cause shown by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay. 12. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) fixed the case for hearing on several days, notices were sent to the assessee. The assessee relied upon

Gottigere Krishnappa Ravi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inocme Tax, Circle-1(4), Bangalroe

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

ITA 1355/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

hospital and soon he will file the appeal. Later on, 25.11.2024 he filed all the appeals and also made a request for condonation of delay. He therefore says that there is no delay in filing of the appeals and all these appeals should have been treated as filed ... attend business affairs and hence delay may be condoned. This was the cause shown by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay. 12. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) fixed the case for hearing on several days, notices were sent to the assessee. The assessee relied upon

Gottigere Krishnappa Ravi, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

ITA 1159/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

hospital and soon he will file the appeal. Later on, 25.11.2024 he filed all the appeals and also made a request for condonation of delay. He therefore says that there is no delay in filing of the appeals and all these appeals should have been treated as filed ... attend business affairs and hence delay may be condoned. This was the cause shown by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay. 12. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) fixed the case for hearing on several days, notices were sent to the assessee. The assessee relied upon

Mount Meru India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Central Ward-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 4293/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/w Ms. Aadnya BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad,(CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 90

stated here that the instant appeal filed before the Bench is substantially delayed. In this regard, an application for condonation of delay has been submitted alongwith an affidavit of Sri Hardik B.Limbachiya, Director as placed on record. It is contended that the assessee is a Private Limited Company which filed ... application within such period.... A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs serious risk.” We therefore, condone the delay setting aside the appellate order. 6. We have duly perused the records from which it is noticed that in this case, the assessment order

Bombay Tyres, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2393/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Bombay Tyres Vs Income-Tax Officer, 23, Arenja Corner, -15(1)(1), Sector-17, Vashi, Mumbai Navi Mumbai – 400703 [Pan: Aagcb1604E] Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee : Shri Tanzil Padvekar & Shri Gopal Sharma, Advocates Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057354062(1), Dated 26.10.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi U/S.144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 28.06.2019 For Ay 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Has Erred In Confirming The Order U/S. 144 R.W.S. 144A Dated 28Th June, 2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer Without Appreciating The Merits Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil Padvekar and Shri Gopal Sharma, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

delay of 460 days noted by the registry in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which an affidavit and petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. In the petition for condonation of delay, the explanation given by the assessee is that ld. CIT(A) had directed ... brought before him. According to him, the delay is neither intentional nor due to negligence. It is, thus prayed by the assessee to condone the delay and take up the matter for adjudication on merits. We have considered the submissions made by the assessee and have corroborated the same with

Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Datia vs. ITO Ward 2(3)(3), Jhansi

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

ITA 404/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhsewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(3)(3), (Alias Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Jhansi. Samiti Maryadit Indergarh), Gram Indragarh Datia, Datia– 475 661 (Madhya Pradesh) . (Pan : Aawfs2482G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 25.11.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. We Are Proceeding To Adjudicate The Matter With The Assistance Of Ld. Dr Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

associated with the society. It is submitted in the condonation application that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate and accordingly requested to condone the delay and assessee has filed affidavit in support thereof. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue objected to the same and submitted ... that the delay is inordinate and should not be condoned. 5. Considered the submissions of the ld. DR and the application for condonation of delay. After going through the application for condonation of delay, we observe that there was a reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly and accordingly

Kapil Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 393/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

family member was suffering from a serious medical condition requiring hospital visits, emotional care and financial support. It is also mentioned in the condonation of delay application that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate and accordingly requested to condone the delay and assessee has filed affidavit explaining the reason ... submitted that the delay is inordinate and should not be condoned. 5. Considered the submissions of the ld. DR and the application for condonation of delay. After going through the application for condonation of delay, we observe that there was a reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly and accordingly

Ld Sarvodaya Hospital Private Limited, Agra vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Agra

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

ITA 375/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhld Sarvodaya Hospital Private Limited, Vs. Ito 2(1)(1), G – 11, Kamla Nagar, Agra. Agra – 282 005 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aaccl7961N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 14.10.2024 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. We Are Proceeding To Decide The Appeal With The Assistance Of The Ld. Dr Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 208 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal On The Ground That The Managing

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 144

prescribed time limit. It is also mentioned in the condonation application that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate and accordingly requested to condone the delay. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue objected to the same and submitted that the delay should not be condoned ... Considered the rival submissions and the application for condonation of delay. After going through the application for condonation of delay, we observe that there was a reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly and accordingly, we are inclined to condone the delay. 6. Further at the time of hearing

Upendra Singh Gour, Rajghat Colony, Lalitpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Income Tax Department

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

ITA 353/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhupendra Singh Gour, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(3)(4), A 4/26, Rajghat Colony, Lalitpur – 284 403 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Bgjpg3206J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 24.07.2024 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. We Are Proceeding To Decide The Appeal With The Assistance Of The Ld. Dr Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, It Was Observed That There Was A Delay Of 113 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit (A) & The Ld. Cit (A) Dismissed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

appeal of the assessee on the ground that there is no merit in the statement as mentioned in Form No.35 of appeal for condonation of delay. It is also observed from the letter on record that assessee was undergoing medical treatment because of serious illness for several months and assessee ... grounds of appeal that assessee has made a plea that ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal without appreciating the reasonable cause for such delay as explained by the assessee. Further we observed that there is delay

Chelaram Balwani, Rathi Building Ke Pass vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 194/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhshri Chelaram Balwani, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (3), Rathi Building Ke Pass, Gwalior. Ward No.8, Ajay Pal Ki Gali, Datia, Gwalior – 475 661 (Madhya Pradesh). (Pan : Aynpb7221P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Dhingra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Order : 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 10.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That There Is A Delay Of 395 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal On The Ground That The Order Was Communicated Via Portal & The Registered Mail Id I.E. 71Nkkhare@Gmail.Com On The Income Tax Portal Does Not Belong To The Assessee, It Might Have Been Of Erstwhile Consultant Who

For Appellant: Shri Alok Dhingra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 147

assessee only after initiation of recovery proceedings. It is also submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate and accordingly requested to condone the delay. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue objected to the same and submitted that the delay should not be condoned ... Considered the rival submissions and the application for condonation of delay. After going through the application for condonation of delay, we observe that there was a reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly and accordingly, we are inclined to condone the delay. 5. At the outset, it was submitted

Smt Vimla Devi Ram Laxman Sharma Shiksha Samiti, Agra vs. ITO, Ward Exemtion, Agra Rcc, Agra

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

ITA 185/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhsmt. Vimla Devi Ram Laxman Sharma Shiksha Samiti, Vs. Ito, Village Gadi Thana, Ward Exemption, Shamshabad, Agra. Agra – 283 125 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aakas3559F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 26.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That There Was A Delay Of 1650 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit (A) & The Ld. Cit (A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee On The Ground Of Inordinate

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 154

appeal of the assessee on the ground of inordinate 2 delay of 1650 days and the ld. CIT (A) did not entertain the condonation of delay requested by the assessee and rejected the same. He submitted that ld. CIT (A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal caused

Amar Chand Gangwal, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Guwahati

Appeal is allowed

ITA 144/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Your Honour Under Section 253(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Challenging The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Said Act By The Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -1, Noida For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. I Respectfully Submit That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Prescribed Time Due To Unavoidable Circumstances & Difficulties Beyond My Control. The Appeal Was Due To Be Filed On Or Before 28.02.2025. There Is Delay Of 95 Days Only In Filing Of The Appeal. 3. I Am Aged About 81 Years & I Am Not Conversant With E-Mail, Digital / Internet

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 270ASection 5

aforesaid observation in mine, when we examine the fact of this case, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal rather than to dismiss it on the ground of limitation. It is apart from the fact that the delay ... hardly of 95 days and secondly: now the ground which the appellant has stated in the present appeal, persuade us to condone the delay by holding that it constitutes sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act. Condoning the delay always advances cause of justice

Manish Punjabhai Odedra, Porbandar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4), Porbandar, Gujarat

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

ITA 187/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is barred by limitation by 178 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Learned Counsel for the assessee explained the delay stating that assessee‘s primary details were registered on the income tax portal, that ... intentional therefore, the delay should be condoned. 4. Learned DR on the other hand has strongly objected to the prayer for condonation of delay and submitted that the delay cannot be condoned on the mere plea of ignorance of Income Tax Laws. 5. We have heard both the parties

Asha Panagariya, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 998/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 250

filing the appeal by the assessee before the Bench for which the assessee has filed an application dated 27-06-2025 for condonation of delay giving therein following reasoning. ‘’I am a senior citizen, aged 79 years, who is not well-versed with the use of technology. The communication Mail ... filing the appeal before ITAT. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld.DR did not object to the submissions of the assessee as to condonation of delay and submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the case. 2.3 After hearing both the parties

Poonam Jain, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(2), Jaipur

ITA 951/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 147

grounds of appeal. ‘’1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law id. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee The action of Id CIT (A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts ... case. Relief may please be granted by condoning the delay in filing the appeal 2 SMT. POONAM JAIN VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, id CIT(A)/NFAC (National Faceless Appeal Centre) has erred in not granting adequate

Ram Prasad Through His Legal Heir Pankaj Goyal, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Bhiwadi, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 738/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: ShriS.L. Poddar, Advocate, (Thru” VC)For Respondent: Shri Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 250

assessee for which the legal her of the assessee Shri Pankaj Goyal has filed an application dated 03-04-2025 for condonation of delay mainly giving therein reasoning as under:- ‘’…. We would like to submit that in this case the order u/s 250 of the Income ... assessee has also not informed. Therefore, this appeal is filing delayed by 398 days. The delay is bona fide. Therefore, we pray to condone the delay.’’ To this effect, the legal heir Shri Pankaj Goyal has filed an affidavit deposing therein the above facts of the case as to delay

Ishan Arora, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 669/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT a
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69C

Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here below:- “4. Decision on Condonation of delay: 4.1 On perusal of Form No. 35, it is seen that the date of service of order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 dated ... plausible explanation. 4.2 The appeal as per the Appeal Memo was filed on 07.10.2019. The appellant has not filed any letter for condonation of delay. Further, the appellant has not made any submissions or given any explanation for the delay in filing the appeal during the course of the appellate