← 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

Kamlesh Bharatkumar Ranpara, Rajkot vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 583/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiareata /Ita No. 583/Rjt/2025 (Feratzorat/A Sessment Year: (2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Dixit, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

been filed by the assessee belatedly. The Ld. Counsel adverted my attention to the affidavit filed in this regard citing reasons for condonation of delay, and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 507 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. On the other hand ... Revenue, opposed the prayer of assessee to condone the delay. A perusal of the affidavit gives me an impression of existence of mitigating circumstances to enable me to exercise my discretion in favorer of assessee. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. 3. At the outset itself, the Id. Counsel

Sujay Laxmeshwar, Bengaluru vs. CIT(A0, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 65/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshisujay Laxmeshwar, Cit(A), A-3/902 Elita Promanade, Nfac, Jp Nagar Phase-7, Delhi Vs. Bengaluru (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abepl6501A Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parpar, Cit-Dr With Shri Nihar Sahu Date Of Hearing 23.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.04.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi For A.Y.2016-17 Which Is Arising From The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 25.12.2018 Framed By Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Bhopal. 2. Registry Has Informed That There Is Delay Of 566 Days In Filing

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

also unfamiliarity of the assessee with electronic communication. After hearing the Departmental Representative and considering the sufficient cause mentioned in the application for condonation of delay and further considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh judgment ... dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) and also observing that the delay is unintentional, we condone the delay of 566 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Though the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal but with the assistance of both the sides we notice that

Ravi Navlani, Indore vs. ITO, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 340/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshiravi Navlani, Income Tax Officer 4(3), Ud-16 Appolo Square, Indore Race Course Road, Vs. Janjirwala Chouraha, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adjpn1579P Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit-Dr With Shri Nihar Sahu Date Of Hearing 23.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Indore. Ravi Navlani 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However since the application for condonation of delay stands filed by the assessee, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of Ld. Departmental Representative ex-parte qua assessee. Registry has informed ... that there is delay of 9 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal and application of condonation of delay stands filed. On going through the reasons we notice that the delay was not intentional and assessee has not gained by delaying the instant appeal. Considering the ratio laid

Sai Baba Agency, Vishal Tower Navlakha vs. ITO 5(1) Indore, Main Building Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 324/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshisai Baba Agency, Income Tax Officer-5(1), 35, Vishal Tower, Indore Navlakha, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Acxfs4495A Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmer Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Dated

Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

informed that there is delay of 67 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The aassessee has submitted Sai Baba Agency condonation of delay application alongwith the affidavit. The main reason mentioned is that the notices of hearing were sent by the Ld. CIT(A) on wrong e-mail ... correct email id jaysukhyani2317@gmail.com mentioned in Form No.35. The Ld. AR also submitted that the delay is not intentional and therefore sought condonation of delay. The Departmental Representative opposed the request. On going through the reasons we notice that the delay is not intentional and therefore a liberal approach needs

Nikita Gupta, Alirajpur vs. ITO-2, Ratlam

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 255/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshinikita Gupta, Income Tax Officer-2, C/O Lb Gold, Ratlam Csa Marg, Vs. Alirajpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aotpg0456K Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar Cit-Dr With Shri Nihar Sahu Date Of Hearing 23.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am:

Section 144Section 44ASection 69

Gupta 2. Registry has informed that there is delay of 7 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has submitted Condonation of Delay application alongwith the affidavit. The Ld. AR for the assessee stated that the e-mail id of previous consultant was mentioned in Form No.35 ... knowledge about the passing of the impugned order. Ld. AR also submitted that the delay is not intentional and therefore sought condonation of delay. The Departmental Representative opposed the request. On going through the reasons we notice that the delay was not intentional and assessee has not gained by delaying

Netra Pradeep Rural Eye Trust, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 1(1) Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 840/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyshri Rakesh Mishra & Assessment Year: 2021-22 Netra Pradeep Rural Eye Trust.……………………….……….……….……Appellant Kuliapara, Dhobapara B. O., Dist- Hooghly, Pin-712512.. [Pan: Aabtn3052C] Vs. Ito, Ward1(1), Exmpt, Kolkata…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddhartha Pratim Datta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Arun Kr. Meena, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 24, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Addl/Jcit(A) Agra [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250Section 5

bona fides is imputable to the appellant." In N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy [1998 (7) SCC 123], this Court held: "It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only ... discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata vs. Raic Integrated Sponge & Power Private Limited, Kolkata

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed being devoid of merits

ITA 1880/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Udayan Dasgupta & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 1879/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 & I.T.A. No. 1880/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,………Appellant Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 315, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Raic Integrated Sponge & Power Private Limited,………………………………………………..Respondent 25, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013 [Pan: Aaccb3462A Appearances By: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153ASection 250

Assessing Officer, Central Circle- 1(3) Kolkata passed u/s 147 of the Act 61, dated 31/03/2023 and 07/07/2023 respectively. 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the Registry that both the appeals are filed belatedly by nineteen days. The Assessing Officer has filed separate prayers explaining the reasons

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Raic Integrated Sponge & Power Private Limited, Kolkata

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed being devoid of merits

ITA 1879/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Udayan Dasgupta & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 1879/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 & I.T.A. No. 1880/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,………Appellant Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 315, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Raic Integrated Sponge & Power Private Limited,………………………………………………..Respondent 25, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013 [Pan: Aaccb3462A Appearances By: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153ASection 250

Assessing Officer, Central Circle- 1(3) Kolkata passed u/s 147 of the Act 61, dated 31/03/2023 and 07/07/2023 respectively. 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the Registry that both the appeals are filed belatedly by nineteen days. The Assessing Officer has filed separate prayers explaining the reasons

Susanta Mallick, Kalikapur vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1764/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250

which has emanated from the order of the AO ( AU/ITD) dated 18/03/2023, passed u/s 147/ 144B of the Act. 2) Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is filed belatedly by sixty six days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay ... took necessary steps to file this appeal on 5th August, 2025 , belated by 66 ( sixty six ) days . The Ld AR prayed for condoning the delay and for admission of the appeal to be heard on merits. The Ld DR has no objection. We are of the opinion that the delay

Chandramari Trust, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai

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

ITA 2307/CHNY/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2307/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: - Chandramari Trust, Vs. The Commissioner Of 90, Pinnacle Residency, Prp Gardens, Income Tax (Exemptions), Bharathi Colo, Avinashi Road, Chennai. Coimbatore 641 004. [Pan: Aactc3285D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai Rejecting The Application Dated 16.05.2024 In Form No. 10Ab Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Seeking Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

section 12AB of the Act. 2. We find the appeal is filed with a delay of 201 days. The assessee filed affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing 2 I.T.A. No.2307/Chny/25 both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated

Construction Labours Welfare Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-3, Chennai

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

ITA 2303/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2303 & 2302/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: - Construction Labours Welfare Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 49, Nerkundram Pathai, Exemptions Ward 3, Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026. Chennai. [Pan: Aactc2116M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Dated 07.11.2024 & 08.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai Rejecting The Applications Dated 15.05.2024 In Form No. 10Ab Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Seeking Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Act As Well As Seeking Approval Under Section 80G Of The Act Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

sake of convenience. 3. We find both the appeals are filed with a delay of 201 days. The assessee filed affidavits for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide

Construction Labours Welfare Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-3, Chennai

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

ITA 2302/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2303 & 2302/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: - Construction Labours Welfare Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 49, Nerkundram Pathai, Exemptions Ward 3, Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026. Chennai. [Pan: Aactc2116M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Dated 07.11.2024 & 08.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai Rejecting The Applications Dated 15.05.2024 In Form No. 10Ab Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Seeking Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Act As Well As Seeking Approval Under Section 80G Of The Act Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

sake of convenience. 3. We find both the appeals are filed with a delay of 201 days. The assessee filed affidavits for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide

Kothandaraman Prakaash, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

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

ITA 2290/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2290/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kothandaraman Prakaash, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H/2, Nethaji Market, Ward 1, Vellore 632 004. Vellore. [Pan: Aarpp4271H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Murali, Ca ""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 : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 80 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 143(3)

year 2018-19. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 80 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, 2 I.T.A. No.2290/Chny/25 we find the reasons stated

Pharmzeal Charitable Foundation, Puducherry vs. JCIT, Exemption Ward-1, Chennai

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

ITA 2269/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2268 & 2269/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: - Pharmzeal Charitable Foundation, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of No. 66, Ponnagar, 3Rd Cross Street, Income Tax (Exemption), Reddiyarpalayam, Puducherry, Ward 1, Chennai. Pondicherry 605 010. [Pan: Aancp5296R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaragahavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Dated 06.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai Rejecting The Applications Dated 28.09.2023 In Form No. 10Ab Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Seeking Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Act As Well As Seeking Approval Under Section 80G Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaragahavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

sake of convenience. 3. We find both the appeals are filed with a delay of 440 days. The assessee filed affidavits for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide

Pharmzeal Charitable Foundation, Puducherry vs. JCIT, Exemption Ward-1, Chennai

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

ITA 2268/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2268 & 2269/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: - Pharmzeal Charitable Foundation, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of No. 66, Ponnagar, 3Rd Cross Street, Income Tax (Exemption), Reddiyarpalayam, Puducherry, Ward 1, Chennai. Pondicherry 605 010. [Pan: Aancp5296R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaragahavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Dated 06.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai Rejecting The Applications Dated 28.09.2023 In Form No. 10Ab Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Seeking Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Act As Well As Seeking Approval Under Section 80G Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaragahavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

sake of convenience. 3. We find both the appeals are filed with a delay of 440 days. The assessee filed affidavits for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide

Vishal Krishna, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2258/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2258/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vishal Krishna, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Old No. T-27, New No. T-3, Income Tax, 12Th Street, Anna Nagar S.O., Non Corporate Circle 10(1), Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan: Aagpv0851L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Vaitheeswaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 105 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 K. Vaitheeswaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

year 2012-13. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 105 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.2258/Chny/25 find the reasons stated ... satisfied with the reasons stated by the assessee for belated filing of appeal, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay as well as deciding the issues 4 I.T.A. No.2258/Chny/25 raised in the appeal on merits. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

K1434 Senjerimalaiyadipalayam Primary Agricultural Co Opcredit Society, Coimbatore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 4(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 2181/CHNY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

filing of these appeals for AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively. The Secretary of the PACCS, R. Kalaivani has filed an application of condonation of delay along with the affidavit. After going through the contents of the application for condoning the delay, submissions made by the Ld.AR for the assessee ... entrusted the case to the present Ld.AR who immediately took steps to file the appeals before this Tribunal on 05.08.2025. Therefore, prayed for condonation of delay in filing of both the appeals. 3. Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to condone the delay and admit the appeals

K1434 Senjerimalaiyadipalayam Primary Agricultural Co Opcredit Society, Coimbatore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 4(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 2180/CHNY/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

filing of these appeals for AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively. The Secretary of the PACCS, R. Kalaivani has filed an application of condonation of delay along with the affidavit. After going through the contents of the application for condoning the delay, submissions made by the Ld.AR for the assessee ... entrusted the case to the present Ld.AR who immediately took steps to file the appeals before this Tribunal on 05.08.2025. Therefore, prayed for condonation of delay in filing of both the appeals. 3. Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to condone the delay and admit the appeals

Chithalpadi Pacs Ltd., Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

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

ITA 1788/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1787 & 1788/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 Chinthalpadi Primary Agri. Co-Operative Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Society Limited, Chinthalpadi Village, Ward 1, Chinthalpadi Post, Pappireddipatty Tk, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri 635 302. [Pan:Aaaac9429J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 24.03.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A)-3, Ahmedabad For The Assessment Years 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 23 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 find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which ... find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 23 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 find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented

Chinthalpadi Pacs Ltd., Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

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

ITA 1787/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1787 & 1788/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 Chinthalpadi Primary Agri. Co-Operative Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Society Limited, Chinthalpadi Village, Ward 1, Chinthalpadi Post, Pappireddipatty Tk, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri 635 302. [Pan:Aaaac9429J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 24.03.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A)-3, Ahmedabad For The Assessment Years 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 23 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 find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which ... find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 23 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 find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented