← 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

ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata vs. Alex Tradecom Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2197/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2197 & 2198/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata…………..…………………………….…….……Appellant Vs. Alex Tradecom Pvt. Ltd…………..……………….………...……...…..…..Respondent 4, Ratan Sarkar Garden Street, Burrabazar, Kol- 700069. [Pan: Aajca6146P] Appearances By: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Against Separate Orders Dated 05.08.2024 & 26.07.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue With Delays Of 38 Days. The Revenue Has Filed Separate Affidavits For Condonation Of The Delays. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid And

Section 148Section 148ASection 250

days. The revenue has filed separate affidavits for condonation of the delays. After considering the reasons cited in the affidavits for condonation of delay, we find that the reasons are valid and ITA Nos.2197 & 2198/Kol/2024 Alex Tradecom Pvt. Ltd consequently, the delays in filing both the appeals are hereby condoned

M/S Impex Ferro Tech Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.Ci.T., Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1640/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144CSection 145(3)Section 250

informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 19 days. An application along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “In this case, the Ld. C.IT (Appeals)-22, Kolkata passed order ... Katiji & Ors. [167 IT.R. 471 (SC)] has held that the Courts should have a pragmatic and liberal approach while considering the petition for condonation of delay. Their Lordships have also held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should

D.Ci.T., Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Impex Ferro Tech Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1521/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144CSection 145(3)Section 250

informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 19 days. An application along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “In this case, the Ld. C.IT (Appeals)-22, Kolkata passed order ... Katiji & Ors. [167 IT.R. 471 (SC)] has held that the Courts should have a pragmatic and liberal approach while considering the petition for condonation of delay. Their Lordships have also held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should

Kanakarathina Media Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Iro, Ncw-10(6), Chennai

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

ITA 2352/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2352/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. M/S. Kanakarathna Media Pvt. Ltd., The Ito, G-2, Sahari Nivas, No.17, Non-Corporate Ward-10(6), Lady Madhavan, Chennai. Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aadck 3117 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT
Section 271B

delay of ‘26’ days in filing of this appeal, because, assessee was prevented by reasons beyond his control and prayed for condonation of delay, for M/s. Kanakarathna Media Pvt. Ltd. :: 2 :: which, the Ld.DR didn’t raise any objection and hence, we condone the delay of ‘26’ days and proceed

Ravi Rao, Chamarajanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chamarajanagar

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

ITA 1834/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vageesh Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 251(1)(a)

appeal was filed on 6.5.2024 and therefore appeal was delayed by 1561 days. The appellant has filed reasons for condonation of delay in Form 35 and also supported with an Affidavit. It was stated by the Page 3 of 6 assessee that the appeal could not be filed in time ... recovery notice. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) irrespective of the number of days of the delay, if found for sufficient reason should have condoned the delay. 7. In view of the above facts, I restore the whole appeal back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction

Chandapura Thimmareddy Manjunath, Bangalore Karnataka vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(5), Bangalore, Bangalore Karnataka

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

ITA 1641/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel
Section 143(2)Section 144

order of the ld. CIT(A) was passed on 25.5.2024, but the appeal was filed on 27.7.2024. The assessee preferred an application for condonation of delay stating that assessee is a flower seller earning a small daily income through door to door sales and he is also working

Bharat Govindji Thakker, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 41(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4995/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarbharat Govindji Thakker V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Pandurang Patil Niwas, बनाम 41(2)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, G N.S. Road, Mulund(West), Block Bkc, Gilban Area, Mumbai – 400 080, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharashtra (East), Mumbai – 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapt6987F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Bharat G. Thakker & Shri Chintan ShethFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui ,(Sr. AR)
Section 144Section 147

since 1994. He acted contrary to the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without granting an effective personal hearing on the condonation of delay or on the merits, thereby depriving him of a fair and reasonable opportunity. The assessee came to know of the assessment order and demand ... Bharat Govindji Thakker, Mumbai to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs serious risk.” We therefore, condone the delay. 6. As regards merits of the case, the AR made a request to remand the entire matter to the file of the AO for necessary compliance and proper consideration

Bharat Nathalal Zaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 4490/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

outset, it is noticed that appeal of the assessee is time barred by 440 days. Alongwith appeal there is no petition for condonation of delay or any affidavit giving any reasons for such a huge delay. Further, it is noticed that this appeal was fixed twice earlier and notices were

Bharat Nathalal Zaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 4489/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

outset, it is noticed that appeal of the assessee is time barred by 440 days. Alongwith appeal there is no petition for condonation of delay or any affidavit giving any reasons for such a huge delay. Further, it is noticed that this appeal was fixed twice earlier and notices were

Bharat Nathalal Zaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 4488/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

outset, it is noticed that appeal of the assessee is time barred by 440 days. Alongwith appeal there is no petition for condonation of delay or any affidavit giving any reasons for such a huge delay. Further, it is noticed that this appeal was fixed twice earlier and notices were

Bharat Nathalal Zaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 4487/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

outset, it is noticed that appeal of the assessee is time barred by 440 days. Alongwith appeal there is no petition for condonation of delay or any affidavit giving any reasons for such a huge delay. Further, it is noticed that this appeal was fixed twice earlier and notices were

Sushila Diamonds, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chamber

In the result, the grounds of appeal and the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4402/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankarsushila Diamonds V/S. Income Tax Officer B 303/304, Lake Lucerne बनाम Ward 19(3)(1), Piramal Lane Homes, Powai, Chamber Mumbai, Mumbai - 400076 Mumbai - 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aakfs7138M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. AR)
Section 147Section 250

professional. The new representative promptly reviewed the case, prepared the necessary documents, and advised to file this appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. The delay caused is stated to be purely due to the negligence of the earlier professional, and not due to any wilful default ... respectful of the procedures under the Act. Therefore, in view these facts and the principles of natural justice, it is requested to condone the delay and the appeal be admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion

Shamkris Charity Foundation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3394/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadangms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. AR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 8

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemption erred in passing the rejection order without condoning the delay in filing Form 10AB when the delay in filing application under section 12A(1)(ac) (iii) was on account of reasonable cause. 6, The Appellant ... There is a delay of 19 days the filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. After hearing both the parties, we are of the view that there is sufficient and the reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal

Vijay Ramchand Panvelkar, Ambernath vs. Dy. CIT - 1, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 1020/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 244ASection 37Section 68

litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs serious risk.”Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee engaged ... ITAT Rules. The ld.DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and objected to the admission of additional evidences and also condonation of delay. Page |8 ITA No. 1020/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Vijay Ramchand Panvelkar 8. We find that the appellate order has also been passed in ex- parte

Jayanthy Venkata Ramamurthy, Gautam Budha Nagar vs. ITO Ward 5(3)(1), Gautam Budha Nagar

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

ITA 5497/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Jayanthy Venkata Ramamurthy, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(3)(1), D-68, Sector-40, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, Noida (Pan: Adapj2155L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Neelesh Kumar Jain, Ca Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148

delay of 35 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, assessee has filed the Application alongwith supporting affidavit for Condonation of Delay stating therein that the delay was occurred due to accident of the assessee’s counsel which resulted, the filing of belated appeal. Hence ... records, I find that reasonable reason has been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeal, before the Tribunal, hence, I condone the delay in dispute and proceeded further. 4. After hearing both the sides and perusing the records, I find that AO has passed the exparte assessment order

Chitra Finman Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-6(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3956/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Chitra Finman 2. At the very outset, the ld counsel of the assessee submitted an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the ground that he was unaware of the passing of the order by the ld. CIT(A) and came to know only upon receipt ... there is a delay of 201 days for filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay without assigning substantial reasons and the therefore, the ld. counsel for the assessee prayed for restoring the appeal

Care Today Fund, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward Exemption 1(3), Civic Centre New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5734/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Care Today Fund, Vs. Income Tax Officer, F-26, First Floor, Exemption 1(3), Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi-1100 01 Pan :Aaatc3762B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 80G(5)(vi)

substantial question of law arises for our bra consideration in this case. The appeal as well as CM No. 3907 of 2010 for condonation of delay are hereby dismissed.” 9. In view of above material facts and well settled principles of law, it is held that the addition made

Swaty Mehta, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

ITA 2551/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2549/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sonia Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2551/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Swaty Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153D

Appeals)-27, New Delhi dated 09.09.2022. These appeals are filed with a delay of 303 days and the assessees filed petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the cause for the delay stating that the delay is due to inadvertent omission on the part of the assessees previous

Sonia Mehta, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

ITA 2549/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2549/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sonia Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2551/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Swaty Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153D

Appeals)-27, New Delhi dated 09.09.2022. These appeals are filed with a delay of 303 days and the assessees filed petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the cause for the delay stating that the delay is due to inadvertent omission on the part of the assessees previous

Shri Bhama Punja Bharai, Junagadh vs. The ACIT Central Circle 2, Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 590/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hybrid Hearing) Assessment Year: (2021-22) Bhama Punja Bharai Vs. Acit Circle-2, Rajkot Near Kuvav Talav, Grofed Road, Azad Aaykar Bhawan, Race Chowk S.O. Junagadh- 362710 Course Road, Rajkot-360001 Pan : Dvxpb 2168 H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Adjournment Application सुनवाई क" तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per,Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Ahmedabad/ National Faceless Appeal, Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] 24.01.2025 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S.144 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2.When The Matter Was Called For Hearing, I Note That The Assessee, Submitted By Way Of Affidavit That The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Belatedly. I Have Gone Through The Affidavit Filed In This Regard Citing Reasons For Condonation Of Delay & I Note That Assessee Urged For A Benign View & Sought Condonation Of Delay Of 182 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. A Perusal Of The

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Adjournment Application
Section 144

that the appeal has been filed by the assessee belatedly. I have gone through the affidavit filed in this regard citing reasons for condonation of delay, and I note that assessee urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 182 days in filing the appeal before