← 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

M/S. Raktikanta Panda Niranjan Panda, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1781/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1781/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Raktikanta Panda Niranjan Panda, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. B, 301, Block B, Tvs Emerald Non Corporate Ward 22(4), Green Hills, No. 345/2B, Tambaram. Nedungundram, Ngo Nagar, Alapakkam, Perungalathur, Chennai 600 063. [Pan:Adjpn9359H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""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: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.06.2024 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 293 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons.

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. CIT
Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

year 2012-13. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 293 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. 2 I.T.A. No.1781/Chny/25 Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated

Manisha Kumari, Patna vs. Ward-5(2), Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 286/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.286/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Manisha Kumari…..……………..………. …………………....Appellant 5, Indrapuri, Keshri Nagar, Indrapuri, Patna, Pin-800024. Bihar.. [Pan: Afmpk0739D] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(2), Patna ......…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shikesh Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.11.2024 Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Relating To The Assessment Year 2016–17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Filed A Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,29,470 For The Assessment Year 2016–17. Based On Information That Income To The Tune Of ₹7,50,000 Had Escaped Assessment, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons For Reopening The Case & Obtained The Necessary Approval From The Competent Authority. Consequently, Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. No Return Of Income Was Filed In Response To The Said Notice. Thereafter, Notices Under Section 142(1) Along With

Section 142(1)Section 148

hearing, it was also submitted that there was a delay of 132 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. An application for condonation of delay along with supporting reasons was filed by the assessee. We have considered the submissions and perused the reasons stated in the condonation petition. Being ... satisfied that the delay was caused due to reasonable and bona fide circumstances, we condone the delay of 132 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits. 5. We observe that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte, without adjudicating

Express News Papers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2237/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2236 & 2237/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Express News Papers Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, 2, Express Estates, Corporate Circle 1(1), Club House Road, Chennai Mount Road, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aaace 1702G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 250

outset, we notice that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeal of 292 days and 343 days for the assessment years 2008-09 & 2009-10 respectively. 3. On perusing the orders ... noticed that the assessee had filed application for condonation of delay stating that its Accountant Ms. Geetha Baskar, who has handled the assessee’s income-tax matter was on intermittent leave from 15.11.2018 to 27.11.2019 in order to support her daughter during her pregnancy and delivery. The assessee has also

Express News Papers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2236/CHNY/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2236 & 2237/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Express News Papers Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, 2, Express Estates, Corporate Circle 1(1), Club House Road, Chennai Mount Road, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aaace 1702G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 250

outset, we notice that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeal of 292 days and 343 days for the assessment years 2008-09 & 2009-10 respectively. 3. On perusing the orders ... noticed that the assessee had filed application for condonation of delay stating that its Accountant Ms. Geetha Baskar, who has handled the assessee’s income-tax matter was on intermittent leave from 15.11.2018 to 27.11.2019 in order to support her daughter during her pregnancy and delivery. The assessee has also

Aa 293 Panahalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

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

ITA 2228/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2226, 2227 & 2228/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 Aa 293 Panahalli Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Vs. Ward 2(1), Credit Society Limited, Erode Panakkahally Post, Thalavady Taluk, Erode – 638 461 Pan: Aacaa 1566A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271A

delay of 131 days in assessment year 2015-16 and 111 days in assessment year 2018-19 The assessee had filed reasons for condonation of delay before the FAA. However, the FAA had dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine on the ground of rejection of petition for condonation ... gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. It is noticed that the FAA has dismissed the appeal in-limine for non-condonation of delay in filing the appeals before him. However, the Ld.AR has submitted that the quantum appeal for both the relevant assessment years are currently ongoing

Aa 293 Panahalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

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

ITA 2227/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2226, 2227 & 2228/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 Aa 293 Panahalli Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Vs. Ward 2(1), Credit Society Limited, Erode Panakkahally Post, Thalavady Taluk, Erode – 638 461 Pan: Aacaa 1566A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271A

delay of 131 days in assessment year 2015-16 and 111 days in assessment year 2018-19 The assessee had filed reasons for condonation of delay before the FAA. However, the FAA had dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine on the ground of rejection of petition for condonation ... gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. It is noticed that the FAA has dismissed the appeal in-limine for non-condonation of delay in filing the appeals before him. However, the Ld.AR has submitted that the quantum appeal for both the relevant assessment years are currently ongoing

Aa 293 Panahalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. The Incometax Officer, Ward 2(1) Erode, Erode

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

ITA 2226/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2226, 2227 & 2228/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 Aa 293 Panahalli Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Vs. Ward 2(1), Credit Society Limited, Erode Panakkahally Post, Thalavady Taluk, Erode – 638 461 Pan: Aacaa 1566A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271A

delay of 131 days in assessment year 2015-16 and 111 days in assessment year 2018-19 The assessee had filed reasons for condonation of delay before the FAA. However, the FAA had dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine on the ground of rejection of petition for condonation ... gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. It is noticed that the FAA has dismissed the appeal in-limine for non-condonation of delay in filing the appeals before him. However, the Ld.AR has submitted that the quantum appeal for both the relevant assessment years are currently ongoing

Tiruchengodu Sengodagounder, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1961/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1961/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Tiruchangodu Sengodagounder Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ramasamy Khannaiyann, Income Tax, 67, Avarampalayam Road, K.R. Puram, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore 641 006. Coimbatore. [Pan:Afzpk7832C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Dharshan Bothra, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 20, Chennai, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 72 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 Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri S. Dharshan Bothra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153A

year 2013-14. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 72 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

Swargiya Prof Nawal Pd. Singh S Sansthan, Vaishali vs. CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 348/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.348/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Swargiya Prof Nawal Pd. Singh S Sansthan…………………..………. …………………....Appellant 0 Sahi Colony, Hajipur, Vaishali, Bihar- 844101.. [Pan: Aagts5236E] Vs. Cpc, Bengaluru……..…....…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 21, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Directed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.01.2025 Passed By The Cit, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Chennai Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018–19. The Case Was Processed By The Cpc, Which Issued An Intimation Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, Disallowing The Assessee’S Claim Of Exemption Of ₹1,25,99,176, Being 80% Of The Total Expenditure Against Total Receipts Of ₹1,27,78,294. Consequently, The Total Income Was Determined At ₹₹1,27,78,294. I.T.A. No.348/Pat/2025 Swargiya Prof Nawal Pd. Singh S Sansthan 3. Aggrieved By The Above Intimation, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Cit(A). However, The Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Solely On The Ground That It Was Filed After A Delay Of 1,489 Days, Without Considering The Matter On Merits.

Section 143(1)Section 250

with a delay of 112 days in filing the appeal. In this connection, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for such delay. We, after considering the submissions of the assessee and the material placed on record, we find that there exists sufficient cause ... before the Ld. CIT (A) and occurred due to bona fide reasons, and now the assessee has ready to filed an application for condonation of delay. The learned DR did not raise any serious objection to the restoration of the matter for adjudication on merits before

Pankaj Kumar, Muzaffarpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna

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

ITA 650/PAT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.649, 645, 646 & 650/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2017–18, 2018–19, 2019–20 & 2020–21 Pankaj Kumar……..……………..………. …………………....Appellant Saraiyaganj, Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001.. [Pan: Alipk3534A] Vs. Cit Patna……………......…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Amit Kamalia, Ca., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 21, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: These Four Captioned Appeals—Ita No. 649/Patna/2024 For A.Y. 2017–18, Ita No. 645/Patna/2024 For A.Y. 2018–19, Ita No. 646/Patna/2024 For A.Y. 2019–20 & Ita No. 650/Patna/2024 For A.Y. 2020–21—Are Filed By The Same Assessee Against The Orders Of The Learned Cit(A), Relating To Penalty Imposed Under Section 270A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Arising Out Of The Respective Assessment Orders. Since The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Common Except For Variation In Figures & Assessment Years, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That There Is A Delay Of Four Days In Filing The Appeals Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270A

four days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition I.T.A. Nos.649, 645, 646 & 650/Pat/2024 Pankaj Kumar for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the submissions and materials on record, we are satisfied that the delay was due to reasonable

Pankaj Kumar, Muzaffarpur vs. Comissioner of Income Tax, Patna

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

ITA 649/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.649, 645, 646 & 650/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2017–18, 2018–19, 2019–20 & 2020–21 Pankaj Kumar……..……………..………. …………………....Appellant Saraiyaganj, Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001.. [Pan: Alipk3534A] Vs. Cit Patna……………......…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Amit Kamalia, Ca., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 21, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: These Four Captioned Appeals—Ita No. 649/Patna/2024 For A.Y. 2017–18, Ita No. 645/Patna/2024 For A.Y. 2018–19, Ita No. 646/Patna/2024 For A.Y. 2019–20 & Ita No. 650/Patna/2024 For A.Y. 2020–21—Are Filed By The Same Assessee Against The Orders Of The Learned Cit(A), Relating To Penalty Imposed Under Section 270A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Arising Out Of The Respective Assessment Orders. Since The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Common Except For Variation In Figures & Assessment Years, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That There Is A Delay Of Four Days In Filing The Appeals Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270A

four days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition I.T.A. Nos.649, 645, 646 & 650/Pat/2024 Pankaj Kumar for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the submissions and materials on record, we are satisfied that the delay was due to reasonable