← 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

Purshottam Rathore, Ratlam vs. ITO 1(2), Ujjain

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 260/IND/2025[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Indore15 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

delay and the appeal is time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee drew us to the following affidavit filed by assessee praying for condonation of delay: Page 2 of 13 Purshottam Rathore ITA No. 260/Ind/2025 - AY 2008-09 Wea Sev MADHYA PRADESH CW 725505 i AFFIDAVIT i _ CODONATION OF DELAY Your ... when the case was taken for scrutiny-assessment, yet he accepted that the bench may take a judicious call in the matter of condonation of delay as well as disposing of this appeal due to the peculiar position of assessee. On a suggestion asked by bench, he narrated that

Mohan Lal Yadav, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward -1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1223/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1223/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Mohan Lal Yadav Vs. The ITO C/o Shri R.S. Poonia, CA Ward 1(1) D-82-B, Siwad Area, Krishna Marg Jaipur Bapu Nagar, Jaipur - 302015 स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं. / PAN/GIR No.: ARMPY 7388Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Ms. Payal Jhorar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Ga

For Appellant: Ms. Payal Jhorar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 69A

assessee was filed with a delay of 94 days. Today the assessee has filed an application dated 13-10-2025 for condonation of delay on the ground that he was not aware of the fact of passing of ex- parte order dated ... thereby the appeal was filed with delay of 94 days. The submissions as made by the assessee in his application for condonation of delay are reproduced as under:- ‘’1. That I am an individual and agriculturist & belong to a rural area. 2. That I have filed an appeal before

Govindam Brj Infra Projects Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Cir-6, Jpr, Jaipur

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1115/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Somani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 270A(1)Section 271Section 44A

delayed by 68 days each. The assessee has filed applications submitting therein the reasons for delay in filing the appeals and prayed for condonation of delay. In support of the applications, the assessee has also filed an Affidavits dated 4th August, 2025 for condonation of delay, which is being reproduced ... advice in the matter. He, thereafter checked the status of our case and suggested to file an appeal before ITAT^ with application for condonation of delay. 7. That the delay was not willful, intentional, or due to any negligence on the part of the Company, but was due to bona

Govindam Brj Infra Projects Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Cir-6, Jpr, Jaipur

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1114/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Somani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 270A(1)Section 271Section 44A

delayed by 68 days each. The assessee has filed applications submitting therein the reasons for delay in filing the appeals and prayed for condonation of delay. In support of the applications, the assessee has also filed an Affidavits dated 4th August, 2025 for condonation of delay, which is being reproduced ... advice in the matter. He, thereafter checked the status of our case and suggested to file an appeal before ITAT^ with application for condonation of delay. 7. That the delay was not willful, intentional, or due to any negligence on the part of the Company, but was due to bona

Aashro Seva Foundation, Vadodara vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 512/AHD/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.512/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : Not Applicable Aashro Seva Foundation The Cit (Exemtpion) बनाम/ B-315 Shreeji Flats Ahmedabad – 380 015 V/S. Vadsar Road Vadsar Vadodara – 390 010 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaita 1508 M (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sarju Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee-Trust Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(E)’] Dated 05/03/2023. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld.Cit(E) In Rejecting The Application Of The Assessee For Final Registration U/S 12Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). Aashro Seva Foundation Vs. Cit (Exemption)

For Appellant: Shri Sarju Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 12A

Aashro Seva Foundation vs. CIT (Exemption) 2 3. The appeal of the assessee is time-barred by 645 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. 4. We have heard the rival contentions of the Ld.Representatives of the parties and gone through the record. 5. The brief ... aware of the aforesaid issuance of notices and final order passed by the Ld.CIT(E). It has been explained in the application for condonation of delay that the email sent by the Ld.CIT(E) did not come to the notice of the key-person of the assessee- trust and, therefore

Yakin Jayantilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1296/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 250

Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”] under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the threshold, it is noticed that the appeals for the Assessment Years 2013–14 to 2017–18 have been filed with a delay ... days in each year. The assessee has filed a sworn affidavit for condonation of delay, ITA No.1292/Ahd/2025 & 4 Others 2 explaining the reasons for such delay. Since the contents and circumstances narrated therein are identical for all the years, they are being considered together. 2.2 In the affidavit, the assessee

Yakin Jayantilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1295/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 250

Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”] under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the threshold, it is noticed that the appeals for the Assessment Years 2013–14 to 2017–18 have been filed with a delay ... days in each year. The assessee has filed a sworn affidavit for condonation of delay, ITA No.1292/Ahd/2025 & 4 Others 2 explaining the reasons for such delay. Since the contents and circumstances narrated therein are identical for all the years, they are being considered together. 2.2 In the affidavit, the assessee

Yakin Jayantilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1294/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 250

Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”] under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the threshold, it is noticed that the appeals for the Assessment Years 2013–14 to 2017–18 have been filed with a delay ... days in each year. The assessee has filed a sworn affidavit for condonation of delay, ITA No.1292/Ahd/2025 & 4 Others 2 explaining the reasons for such delay. Since the contents and circumstances narrated therein are identical for all the years, they are being considered together. 2.2 In the affidavit, the assessee

Yakin Jayantilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1293/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 250

Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”] under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the threshold, it is noticed that the appeals for the Assessment Years 2013–14 to 2017–18 have been filed with a delay ... days in each year. The assessee has filed a sworn affidavit for condonation of delay, ITA No.1292/Ahd/2025 & 4 Others 2 explaining the reasons for such delay. Since the contents and circumstances narrated therein are identical for all the years, they are being considered together. 2.2 In the affidavit, the assessee

Yakin Jayantilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1292/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 250

Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”] under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the threshold, it is noticed that the appeals for the Assessment Years 2013–14 to 2017–18 have been filed with a delay ... days in each year. The assessee has filed a sworn affidavit for condonation of delay, ITA No.1292/Ahd/2025 & 4 Others 2 explaining the reasons for such delay. Since the contents and circumstances narrated therein are identical for all the years, they are being considered together. 2.2 In the affidavit, the assessee

Nishkam Shewa Mandal, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1051/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1051/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : N.A.

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Nishkam Shewa Mandal vs. CIT(E) 2. The appeal of the assessee is time-barred by 133 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. 3. At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the notices dated 23/07/2024 & 23/08/2024 issued by the Ld.CIT

Ramesh Sistla, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

ITA 45/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: CA Y. V. Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: Dr.Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 68Section 69A

outset, there is a delay of 10 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with a copy of the affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay and praying for condonation of the same. After considering the reasons

Seva Bharathi, Hyderabad vs. CIT., Exemption Ward 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

ITA 365/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA Sri HarshaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

passed u/sec.119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 2 ITA.No.365 & 1307/Hyd./2025 1961 [in short "the Act"] whereby the application for condonation of delay in filing Form-10B was rejected for the assessment year 2022-2023. The other appeal i.e., ITA.No. 1307/Hyd/2025 by the Assessee is directed against ... 1307/Hyd./2025 learned CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that application for condonation of delay in filing Form-10B before the Pr. CIT was also rejected by the concerned Pr. CIT u/sec.119(2)(b) of the Act. 4. Before

Seva Bharathi, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

ITA 1307/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA Sri HarshaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

passed u/sec.119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 2 ITA.No.365 & 1307/Hyd./2025 1961 [in short "the Act"] whereby the application for condonation of delay in filing Form-10B was rejected for the assessment year 2022-2023. The other appeal i.e., ITA.No. 1307/Hyd/2025 by the Assessee is directed against ... 1307/Hyd./2025 learned CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that application for condonation of delay in filing Form-10B before the Pr. CIT was also rejected by the concerned Pr. CIT u/sec.119(2)(b) of the Act. 4. Before

Ramagopal Varma Ramaraju, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Interenational Taxation-2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee arising from the assessment order passed u/sec

ITA 1302/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /It(It)A No.507/Hyd/2025 & Ita.No.1302/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2015-2016 Ramgopal Varma The Income Tax Officer Ramaraju, Hyderabad. Vs. [Int.Taxn]-2, Hyderabad Pin – 500 060. Telangana. Pin - 500 004. Telangana. Pan Arppr7316E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri S Rama Rao, Advocate Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: & Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Sri S Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: And Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

mentioned "the delay is not condoned and thus, the appeal is not being admitted". 3. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the plea for condonation of delay wrongly relying on the AO's endorsement in the assessment order that no communication with regard to filing of objections before

Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Kolkata vs. S G S Fashion Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 729/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Sgs Fashion Private Limited 5Th Floor, Room No.5/12/2B, 49/1/1, Cotton Street, Barabazar, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, H.O. Kolkata-700007, Vs. Chowringhee Square, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aancs2236G Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manas Mondal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manas Mondal, DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

took quite a long time and accordingly, the delay may be condoned. The ld. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. SGS Fashion Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal

ACIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Sumangal Jewels Private Limited, Kolkata

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

ITA 192/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

prayed that the delay is for bonafide reasons and may be condoned. The Id. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 08. Since, we have quashed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Rajesh Auto Merchandise Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1318/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rajesh Auto Merchandise Dy. Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax, Central Circle 4(3), 2Nd Floor, B 2/2 Gillander House, 110, Shantipally, Vs. 8, N.S. Road, Kolkata-700001, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccr9920R Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajaria, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

administrative approvals from the competent authoritiesand accordingly, the delay may be condoned. The ld. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. Considering the Rajesh Auto Merchandise Pvt. ltd; A.Y. 2013-14 reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit

Sumangal Jewels P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC- 4(3), Kolkata

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

ITA 2408/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

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

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

prayed that the delay is for bonafide reasons and may be condoned. The Id. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 08. Since, we have quashed

M.N. Chickkanna Chettiar Trust, Tiruppur vs. ACIT (Exemptions), Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the assessee for the A

ITA 1568/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri. T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 234BSection 250

dated 26.03.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that the trust has to file petition u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay before the ld.CIT/ DIT(E). 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an instant appeal before this