← 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

Kishan Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 1155/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 69ASection 69C

filing the appeal by the assessee before the Bench for which the assessee has filed an application dated 21-08-2025 for condonation of delay giving therein reasoning that he is 12th pass and does not know have knowledge of computer i.e. online system as well as digital processing ... appeal is not deliberate but mistake occurred due to no knowledge of online system on Income Tax Portal. Hence, the assessee prayed to condone the delay so made in filing the appeal before ITAT. To this effect, the assessee has filed an affidavit deposing the above facts as to delay

Mali Ram Yadav, Therkyo Ki Dhani vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1110/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1110/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Mali Ram Yadav Thekryo Ki Dhani, Village & Post: Jahota, Tehsil: Amer Distt: Jaipur 303 701 बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward - 7(2) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं. / PAN/GIR No.: ABJPY 6715A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assesseeby : Shri Rakesh Kumar Kabra, CA Mrs. Prachela Kabra, CA राजस्व की ओर से /

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 69

days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an application dated 06-08-2025 for condonation of delay narrating therein the reason that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi was received on 23-07-2025 while checking the income ... assessee, the Bench feels that the assessee was prevented with sufficient reason for not filling the appeal in time and therefore, we condone the delay as this delay occurred due to non-receipt / non-communication of ld. CIT(A)’s order by the assessee. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal

M/S Vxa Global LLP, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1027/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Ms. Paridhi Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 250Section 37(1)

filing the appeal by the assessee before the Bench for which the assessee has filed an application dated 15-07-2025 for condonation of delay giving therein mainly following reasoning . ‘’ 3. The appellant filed an appeal to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi which was dismissed vide its order ... firm to file a belated appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of the NFAC(A) with the application for condonation of delay narrating the true facts. Accordingly, the appellant is filing the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and requests to condone the delay of 383 days

Palas Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Sikar vs. ITO, Sikar

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

ITA 1017/JPR/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021
For Appellant: Sh. Jitendra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gajendra Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 250Section 253(5)Section 80A(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

delay of 344 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee. The assessee filed the condonation petition along with the affidavit to condone the delay. The prayer so made reads as follows: "The humble assessee most respectfully begs to submit as under: 1. That in the aforesaid matter ... referred to as "the appellant"), having its office at Village “Palas”, District Sikar, Rajasthan duly authorised and competent to file this petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.2 That the order under section 250 of the Income

Triloknath Vatsalya Vatika, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, CPC, Bangalore Present Jao- the ITO, Ward-1 (Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1092/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1092/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Triloknath Vatsalya Vatika The Dy.Cit बनाम/ At Balva Cpc Bangalore. V/S. Nr. Tahuko Hotel Present Jao Kalol The Ito Ward-1(Exemption) Gandhinagar – 382 001 Ahmedabad-380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aants 5604 B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10/03/2025 Passed By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-Gwalior [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Fofaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44A

justified in denying exemption under sections 11 and 12. The CIT(Appeals) also referred to CBDT Circular No. 16/2022 dated 19.07.2022, which authorizes condonation of delay in filing Form 10B up to three years by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner of Income-tax under section ... condonation from the competent authority. The CIT(Appeals) held that neither CPC nor the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(Appeals) had jurisdiction to condone such delay. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) upheld the action of CPC in denying the benefit of section 11 and dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant

Dilip Jawaharlal Varyani, Pune vs. DCIT Circle-8, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 643/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.643/Pun/2025 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year:2011-12 Dilip Jawaharlal Varyani, V The Dy.Commissioner Of S.No.9/2B, Cts No.905, S Income Tax, Circle-8, Vaibhav Vihar, Near Vikram Pune. Vihar, Pimpri, Pune – 411017. Pan: Acapv0521H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarad Vaze, Ca – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde, Irs–Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19.06.2024 For The A.Y.2011-12 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 26.03.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

grounds of appeal : ITA No.643/PUN/2025[A] “1. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee prays to condone the delay of 192 days in filing the present appeal. An affidavit explaining the rear lo delay will be submitted at the time of hearing ... Affidavit. Ld.AR submitted that Due to the Illness of the Assessee, the appeal could not be filed in time. Ld.AR requested for condonation of delay. 2.1 Ld.AR submitted that Assessee is a Civil Contractor doing work for Municipal Corporations. For A.Y.2011-12, the Assessing Officer has partly disallowed labour expenditure claimed

DCIT, Kolkata vs. Ravi Kumar Newatia, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 339/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Kolkata ……………………………………….…………….…….……Appellant Vs. Ravi Kumar Newatia…..…………………………...………...……...…..…..Respondent 29/13, Doveland Court Ballygunge Park, Kol- 19. [Pan: Abqpn6532P] Appearances By: Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 28, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.08.24 Of The Cit(A)-21, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 76 Days. 2. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits. Ravi Kumar Newatia

Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 250

days. 2. The revenue has filed a petition for condonation of the delay. After considering the reasons cited in the petition for condonation of delay, we find that the reasons are valid and consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose

Binod Kumar Agarwal, East Sikkim vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1927/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 1924/Kol/2025 (A.Y. 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 1925/Kol/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 1926/Kol/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 1927/Kol/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) Binod Kumar Agarwal,……………………….,…Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Anxpa0213H] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, E.M. By Pass, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 144

submitted by the ld. A.R. that the appeals of the assessee are delayed by 2033 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay, which reads as follow: AFFIDAVIT I, Binod Kumar Agarwal, son of Late Khachanchi Ram Agarwal, aged 50 years, by religion Hindu, residing at Singtam ... Supreme Court in the case of the Old Settlers of Sikkim. 5. In reply, the ld. Departmental Representative vehemently opposed the condonation of delay. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) being 2019, the substantial delay should not be condoned. 6. We have heard

Binod Kumar Agarwal, East Sikkim vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1926/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 1924/Kol/2025 (A.Y. 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 1925/Kol/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 1926/Kol/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 1927/Kol/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) Binod Kumar Agarwal,……………………….,…Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Anxpa0213H] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, E.M. By Pass, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 144

submitted by the ld. A.R. that the appeals of the assessee are delayed by 2033 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay, which reads as follow: AFFIDAVIT I, Binod Kumar Agarwal, son of Late Khachanchi Ram Agarwal, aged 50 years, by religion Hindu, residing at Singtam ... Supreme Court in the case of the Old Settlers of Sikkim. 5. In reply, the ld. Departmental Representative vehemently opposed the condonation of delay. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) being 2019, the substantial delay should not be condoned. 6. We have heard

Binod Kumar Agarwal, East Sikkim vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1925/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 1924/Kol/2025 (A.Y. 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 1925/Kol/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 1926/Kol/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 1927/Kol/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) Binod Kumar Agarwal,……………………….,…Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Anxpa0213H] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, E.M. By Pass, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 144

submitted by the ld. A.R. that the appeals of the assessee are delayed by 2033 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay, which reads as follow: AFFIDAVIT I, Binod Kumar Agarwal, son of Late Khachanchi Ram Agarwal, aged 50 years, by religion Hindu, residing at Singtam ... Supreme Court in the case of the Old Settlers of Sikkim. 5. In reply, the ld. Departmental Representative vehemently opposed the condonation of delay. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) being 2019, the substantial delay should not be condoned. 6. We have heard

Binod Kumar Agarwal, East Sikkim vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1924/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 1924/Kol/2025 (A.Y. 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 1925/Kol/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 1926/Kol/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 1927/Kol/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) Binod Kumar Agarwal,……………………….,…Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Anxpa0213H] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, E.M. By Pass, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 144

submitted by the ld. A.R. that the appeals of the assessee are delayed by 2033 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay, which reads as follow: AFFIDAVIT I, Binod Kumar Agarwal, son of Late Khachanchi Ram Agarwal, aged 50 years, by religion Hindu, residing at Singtam ... Supreme Court in the case of the Old Settlers of Sikkim. 5. In reply, the ld. Departmental Representative vehemently opposed the condonation of delay. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) being 2019, the substantial delay should not be condoned. 6. We have heard

Dinesh Joshi, Gangtok, Sikkim vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim

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

ITA 1841/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69B

days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of the delay. After considering the reasons cited in the affidavit for condonation of delay, we find that the reasons are valid and consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal

DCIT Central Circle 1 4 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2245/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

No.42 to 45/KOL/2025 are barred by limitation by 167 days for which condonation petitions were filed before the tribunal praying for the condoning the delay. On perusal of the condonation petitions and the reasons stated for delay in filing the appeals, we find that reasons to be genuine and bonafide ... raise objections in condoning the delay. Keeping in view reasons explaining the delay in the condonation petitions as well as judicial pronouncements that the case should be decided on merit and technicality should not be a bar to decide the issue, the delay in filing the appeals is hereby condoned

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2196/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

No.42 to 45/KOL/2025 are barred by limitation by 167 days for which condonation petitions were filed before the tribunal praying for the condoning the delay. On perusal of the condonation petitions and the reasons stated for delay in filing the appeals, we find that reasons to be genuine and bonafide ... raise objections in condoning the delay. Keeping in view reasons explaining the delay in the condonation petitions as well as judicial pronouncements that the case should be decided on merit and technicality should not be a bar to decide the issue, the delay in filing the appeals is hereby condoned

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2187/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

No.42 to 45/KOL/2025 are barred by limitation by 167 days for which condonation petitions were filed before the tribunal praying for the condoning the delay. On perusal of the condonation petitions and the reasons stated for delay in filing the appeals, we find that reasons to be genuine and bonafide ... raise objections in condoning the delay. Keeping in view reasons explaining the delay in the condonation petitions as well as judicial pronouncements that the case should be decided on merit and technicality should not be a bar to decide the issue, the delay in filing the appeals is hereby condoned

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2179/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

No.42 to 45/KOL/2025 are barred by limitation by 167 days for which condonation petitions were filed before the tribunal praying for the condoning the delay. On perusal of the condonation petitions and the reasons stated for delay in filing the appeals, we find that reasons to be genuine and bonafide ... raise objections in condoning the delay. Keeping in view reasons explaining the delay in the condonation petitions as well as judicial pronouncements that the case should be decided on merit and technicality should not be a bar to decide the issue, the delay in filing the appeals is hereby condoned

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 2178/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

No.42 to 45/KOL/2025 are barred by limitation by 167 days for which condonation petitions were filed before the tribunal praying for the condoning the delay. On perusal of the condonation petitions and the reasons stated for delay in filing the appeals, we find that reasons to be genuine and bonafide ... raise objections in condoning the delay. Keeping in view reasons explaining the delay in the condonation petitions as well as judicial pronouncements that the case should be decided on merit and technicality should not be a bar to decide the issue, the delay in filing the appeals is hereby condoned

Aurojeeva Trust, Puducherry vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward 1, Chennai

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

ITA 2246/CHNY/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2246/Chny/2025

For Appellant: Shri V. Meenakshi Sundar, C.A =>For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(ii)

days. The Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application on the ground that there is no mandatory provision under the Act for condonation of delay in respect of applications seeking approval u/s. 80G of the Act. 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has submitted that the assessee ... filed a condonation petition before CBDT seeking condonation of delay u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act in filing Form-10AB. It was further submitted that the said petition is currently pending before the CBDT. The Ld. AR, therefore requested that the order of Ld. CIT(E) be set aside

Gokuldass Srinivasan, Udumalaipettai vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 2230/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 263

Ld.AR brought to our notice that there is a delay of ‘381’ days in filing of appeal. In order to condone the delay, the assessee is noted to have filed affidavit along with application for condonation of delay. Having gone through the contents of the same and considering the overall ... case, in the interest of ITA Nos.1061 & 2230/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Gokuldass Srinivasan :: 3 :: justice and fair play, we are inclined to condone the delay. Coming to the impugned revisional order, according to the Ld.AR, the Ld.PCIT has found certain mistakes in the assessment order dated 31.03.2022 passed

Ranjith Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(6), Chennai

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

ITA 2041/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2041/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjith Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 418A, Flat No. 1 & 2, 1St Floor, 2Nd Link Non-Corporate Ward 19(6), Road, Sadasivam Nagar North, Chennai. Madipakkam, Chennai 600 091. [Pan: Adnpr0643L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 358 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 148Section 69A

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 358 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we 2 I.T.A. No.2041/Chny/25 find the reasons stated