← 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

Deepa Prajapati, Sundergarh vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rourkela

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

ITA 134/CTK/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiadeepa Prajapati, Assessing Officer, Prajapati Bhawan, Main Road, Raurkela, Raurkela. Vs. Sundergarh, Sundergarh-769001 (Odisha) Pan No. Aarpp 6708 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

hearing before us, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay of 88 days in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ... prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for readjudication on merit after condoning the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the assessee could be able to produce all the evidences to substantiate her claim. 4. In reply

Ashok Kumar Jain, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Bolangir, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

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

ITA 133/CTK/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 147

appeal of the assessee is barred by 131 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation petition stating the sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. ITA No.133 /Ctk/2026 Accordingly

Sree Ganesh Infra Project Pvt Ltd, Cuttack vs. DCIT Circle-1(1) Cuttack, Cuttack

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

ITA 127/CTK/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

assessee is barred by 742 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation petition supported by affidavit stating the sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay

Satyajit Munda, Mayurbhanj vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Baripada

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

ITA 816/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasatyajit Munda, I.T.O., At-Kukudakhumpi, Bainganbadia, Ward-1, Vs. Kuliana, Mayurbhanj-757105 (Odisha) Baripada. Pan No. Amrpm 0321 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

hearing before us, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay of 792 days in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ... prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for readjudication on merit after condoning the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 4. In reply, ld Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). However

Aparna Pradhan, Govind Residency, Kiit Road, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO Kenddrapada Ward, Kendrapada

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

ITA 800/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaaparna Pradhan, I.T.O., Flat No. 308, Govind Residency, Kht Kenddrapada Ward. Vs. Road, Bhubaneswar-751024 (Odisha) Pan No. Blwpp 3485 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 30 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false ... object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay Aparna Pradhan Vs ITO of 30 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer

Subash Kumar Sahoo, Cuttack vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 712/CTK/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasubash Kumar Sahoo, Commissioner Of Income S/O- Bhikari Charan Sahoo, At Tax (Appeals). Vs. Bidharpur, P.O.- Abhimanpur, P.S. Badamba, Dist.- Cuttack-754035 (Odisha) Pan No. Brtps 0366 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 138 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false ... object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay Subash Kumar Sahoo Vs CIT(A) of 138 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer

DCIT, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur vs. M/S Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 30/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(vila)

dated 22.06.2020. 1.1 The Registry has not pointed out any delay in filing the appeal. However, the Revenue has filed an application for condonation of delay, if any, in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reason for the delay is stated to be the restrictions imposed throughout the country ... working mechanism of the Income Tax Department also underwent a paradigm shift. The Revenue has prayed in the interest of justice for condonation of delay, if any, in submitting the appeal. On going through the petition ITA No.: 30/PAT/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank. seeking condonation

Elgar Pratisthan, Chandrapur vs. ITO Ward-3 Exemption, Nagpur

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 263/NAG/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Elgar Pratisthan Ito, Ward–3 (Exemption), Nagpur Pragati Nagar, Rayatwari Ward, Vs Bsnl Rttc Building, Nagpur, Tadala Road, Chandrapur, Maharashtra – 440006. Maharashtra–442402. [Pan: Aaate2218A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 12ASection 254(1)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

other hand, the learned CIT-DR for the revenue objected against the contention of ld. AR of the assessee in seeking condonation of delay. The ld. CIT–DR submits that assessee has raised very vague plea which is not reasonable explanation of delay. The ld. CIT–DR further submits that ... assessee does not fulfilled the condition of clause (i) to (v) of section 80G(5). Thus, the assessee is neither eligible for condonation of delay nor to any relief on merit. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record carefully. Firstly

Income Tax Officer Ward-3 Exemp, Nagpur vs. Prerna Samajik Sanskritik Bahuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Armori, Gadchiroli

In the result, the appeal of revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 408/NAG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy, Am

For Appellant: Shri Milind Bhusari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT–DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(ba)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2

entire receipts without giving benefit of expenditure towards objects of the trust. As submitted by the appellant, the CIT(Exemption), Pune has already condoned the delay in filing the Form No. 10B vide order dated 26-05-2023 under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. With condonation of delay

Vikram Singh Grover, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 (1) Chandigarh, Chandigarh

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

ITA 608/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: The Cit(A) On 19.04.2023 Along With A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Explaining That The Intimation Remained Unnoticed & The Assessee Was Pursuing Rectification Proceedings U/S 154. The Learned Cit(A), However, Held That The Reasons Did Not Constitute

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249Section 249(3)Section 249(4)Section 250

exemption and consequent demand was raised. 3. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) on 19.04.2023 along with a petition for condonation of delay explaining that the intimation remained unnoticed and the assessee was pursuing rectification proceedings u/s 154. The learned CIT(A), however, held that the reasons

Nisha Legal Heir of Late Sh. Rajinder Nath, Ambala vs. ITO Ward 1 Ambala, Amabala

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

ITA 1354/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT, DR
Section 68

Thereafter, the legal heirs filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 20.01.2023. The Ld. CIT(A), however, refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the issues on the merits by adopting a strict technical approach. 4. Against the order ... ensure diligence in the prosecution of remedies. 7.1 In our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) has adopted a pedantic approach in refusing condonation of delay. The death of the assessee constitutes a sufficient and reasonable cause. It cannot be expected that the legal heirs would instantaneously be aware

Shree Saurastra Gurjar Sutar Vishvakarma Parivar, Ahmedabad vs. CIT(E), Ahmedabada, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2538/AHD/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2026-27

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Parth Mistry, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 12A

Sutar Vishvakarma Parivar vs. CIT(E) Asst. Year : 2026-27 3. The appeal is time-barred by 48 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been pleaded that the assessee had applied for final registration under sub-clause (iii) of clause ... Audit Reports and Income Tax Returns during the peak filing season and could not file the present appeal in time. The reason for condonation of delay does not constitute sufficient reasons for the purpose of condoning the delay in filing the application. 4. The fact on the file is that

Paranjyothi Thota, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2079/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

For Appellant: Advocate C. AnuragFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

Projects Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - 10(3) 37 taxmann.com 137 (Mumbai - Trib.) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Further, the Ld. CIT (A) had also decided the issue involved on merit and after considering the relevant facts ... learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal, even though there was no delay in filing the appeal, if we consider the date of receipt of the assessment order

Paranjyothi Thota, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2050/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

For Appellant: Advocate C. AnuragFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

Projects Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - 10(3) 37 taxmann.com 137 (Mumbai - Trib.) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Further, the Ld. CIT (A) had also decided the issue involved on merit and after considering the relevant facts ... learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal, even though there was no delay in filing the appeal, if we consider the date of receipt of the assessment order

Sri Sri Ramakrishna Ashrama Ahmadpur, Ahmadpur vs. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kolkata, CIT(E)

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

ITA 2858/KOL/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(ii)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 27 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the rejection order was uploaded on the ITBA portal but the email notification was inadvertently missed by the office bearers of the Ashram ... assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the order

M/S. Ghani Rasheed & Co., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3767/CHNY/2025[2013-14 (26Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3766 & 3767/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 [26Q – Q3 & 26Q – Q4] M/S. Ghani Rasheed & Co., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1/2, Kattur Sadayappan Street, Income Tax, Periamet, Chennai 600 003. Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai. [Tan:Cheg12362A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2026 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 15.09.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14 [26Q – Q3 & 26Q – Q4].

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 10 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 10 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 4 I.T.A. Nos.3766 & 3767/Chny/25 find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide

M/S. Ghani Rasheed & Co., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3766/CHNY/2025[2013-14 (26Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3766 & 3767/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 [26Q – Q3 & 26Q – Q4] M/S. Ghani Rasheed & Co., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1/2, Kattur Sadayappan Street, Income Tax, Periamet, Chennai 600 003. Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai. [Tan:Cheg12362A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2026 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 15.09.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14 [26Q – Q3 & 26Q – Q4].

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 10 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 10 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 4 I.T.A. Nos.3766 & 3767/Chny/25 find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide

Sudarsanam Bhaskaran, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(3), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3657/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3657/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

There is a delay of the 03 days in filing the appeal before the tribunal and the assessee filed the petition seeking condonation of delay. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause ... Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay of in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The Ld. AR at the outset submitted that the notice under section

Dharman Sivakumar, Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3628/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3628/Chny/2025 & Sa No.6/Chny/2026 (Arises In Ita No.3628/Chny/2025) िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dharman Sivakumar, The Income Tax Officer, 5/135, Keelmaraiamman Kovil Street, Vs. Ward-1, Dharmapuri Collectorate S.O., Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri – 636 705. Pan: Bykps 9499C

For Respondent: Mr.Raja Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

There is a delay of the 01 day in filing the appeal before the tribunal and the assessee filed the petition seeking condonation of delay. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause ... Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay of in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA No.3628/Chny/2025 & SA No.6/Chny/2026 Dharman Sivakumar :- 3 -: 4. We heard the parties

George Maijo Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3621/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3621/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Joshita Jothi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

There is a delay of the 92 days in filing the appeal before the tribunal and the assessee filed the petition seeking condonation of delay. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause ... Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay of in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. We heard the parties and perused the material on record