“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

Devang Dilip Vyas, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4555/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250

appeal. How3ever before us, the same was filed beyond the period of limitation (i.e delay of 656 days) and consequently an application for condonation of delay has been filed 4. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record and the orders passed ... revenue authorities. 5. From the records, we noticed that assessee has filed a detailed explanation thereby explaining the reason for seeking condonation of delay. The assessee has mentioned reasons for none compliance before the CIT(A) in affidavit as under: Affidavit for Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal before

Devang Dilip Vyas, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4554/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250

ACIT, Circle-3, Thane, Ashar It Park Thane vs. Magic Kraft Private Limited, Vasai East

ITA 4338/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 1ISection 250

that delay or defects in filing Form 10-IC are procedural and condonable in nature: Circular No. 06/2022 dated 17.03.2022 – specifically provided for condonation of delay in filing Form 10-IC for A.Y. 2020–21. The circular makes it clear that where the assessee is otherwise eligible for the concessional ... condone delay in filing such Form Section 115BAA, read with section 119, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Certain domestic companies, tax on (Condonation of delay) - Assessment year 2020-21 - Assessee-company filed its return of income for relevant assessment year declaring certain taxable income - It exercised option under section

ACIT, Circle-3, Thane, Ashar, It Park vs. Magic Kraft Private Limited, Vasai East

ITA 4327/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 1ISection 250

Laljiram Kedar Vishwakarma, Thane vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Thane

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

ITA 4110/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 69A

more opportunity and the matter is accordingly set aside to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the same afresh including the condonation of delay, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with 3 the notices and furnish necessary information/documentation

Shailesh Hatmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3464/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(3)Section 250

year 2010-11. 2. At the outset, I noticed that present appeal is time barred and in this regard an affidavit for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, the same is reproduced herein below: I, Mr. Shailesh Hatmal Jain, an Indian Inhabitant, aged about 40 years ... present my case. I say that the reasons for the delay in filing appeal are also explained in detail in the prayer for condonation of delay being filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal and I affirm the facts stated therein to be true and correct. 3. Ld. AR also placed

Shree Gurudev Datta Mandir Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee isallowed in above terms for statistical purposes

ITA 2499/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanshree Gurudev Datta Mandir Cit(Exemptions)/Ito Trust Ward 2(3), Datta Mandir Compound, Datta Vs. R. No. 601, 6Th Floor, Cumbulla Mandir Road, Vakola Pipeline, Hill, Mtnl Building, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Cumballa Hill, Mumbai, Pan: Aaats8130R Maharashtra – 400 026

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

activities, whichever is earlier. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the application for seeking condonation of delay without appreciating the fact narrated and in the given facts and circumstances, the assessee has shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Therefore, the impugned order ... Form 10AB within the time prescribed i.e. six months prior to the expiry of period of the provisional registration, therefore the application for condonation of delay has been rightly rejected by the Ld. CIT(E). Ld. DR further submitted that assessee has failed to file the application

Sunil Petha Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2390/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2017-18 Sunil Petha Patel, Ito, Ward-25(3)(4), 1, Nehru Nagar, 236, Kautilya Bhavan, Opp: Rasraj Hotel, Vs. C-41 To C-43, Vile Parle West, G Block, Bkc, Mumbai-400056. Bandra East, Pan : Agupp9993R Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PatelFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.DR

Section 144

delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the affidavit submitted by him seeking condonation of delay. Further, it was submitted that he was running a retail medical shop and sales are largely done in cash and, therefore, the cash so deposited

Subha Hariharan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 35(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1154/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Subha Hariharan Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 4 B 503/504, Ward 35(3)(4), Dosti Elite Tower -B Mumbai Vs. Next To Sion Telephone Exchange Sion (W), Mumbai – 400022 (Pan: Acmph5705R) (Assessee) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Mr. Ruturaj Gurjar, Advocate Revenue : Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr (Virtually Appeared) Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1071531320(1), Dated 24.12.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward – 35(3)(4), Mumbai, U/S. 144 R.W.S.147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 27.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 24/12/2024 Without Giving Reasonable Opportunity To The Petitioner To Represent Its Case.

For Appellant: Mr. Ruturaj Gurjar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

grounds: the Ld. CIT (A) has also erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant had filed a letter stating Grounds for condonation of Delay: the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given reasonable opportunity to the explain petitioner's case. 4. Each of the above ground be considered ... ground nos. 1 to 3 are in respect of dismissal of the first appeal ignoring the submissions made by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and not giving reasonable opportunity to present the case. 4. From the perusal of the order

Gunjan Rungta, Kushinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Kushinagar

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

ITA 50/VNS/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Gunjan Rungta V. The Income Tax Officer Onkar Vatika Colony Ward 2(4) Padrauna, Kushinagar (U.P) Kushinagar Tan/Pan:Agmpr5334G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 15.06.2022, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That During The Year Under Consideration The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property For A Consideration Of Rs.30,50,000/-. To Examine This Transaction, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 69

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated Nil for condonation of delay, stating therein that during the relevant period when the ITA No.50/VNS/2022 Page 6 of 8 order was passed by the NFAC, father ... delay being condoned. 5.0 In view of the prayer made by the Ld. A.R. and no objection by the Ld. Sr. D.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 6.0 During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Authorized Representative

Prakash Gupta, Gopalganj vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2 (4), Siwan

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

ITA 206/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

assessee and the appeal was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. Although the assessee has not filed any application seeking condonation of delay, however a submission stated to be an affidavit I.T.A. No.: 206/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prakash Gupta. has been filed in which it is stated ... 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: I.T.A. No.: 206/PAT/2025 Assessment

Navras School of Performing Arts, Patna vs. CIT(E)Patna, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 194/PAT/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12A

application that new Advocate, therefore, was appointed and ultimately was filed appeal before the Tribunal. 4. After considering the application for condonation of delay and perusing the materials available on record, we are not satisfied with the above explanation rendered by the assessee for condonation of delay of 625 days ... explained any reasonable ground for such delay. Under the facts and circumstances of the matter, we do not find any merit in condoning the delay in preferring the appeal before us and the same is hereby dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Kolkata

Syed Nazim Moinuddin Quazi, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 503/NAG/2025[2020 - 2021]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesayed Nazim Maoinuddin Quazi, Pltono.11–A & House Noquadri Enclave, Opp. Suri Laws Behind Police Line Takli ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 013, Maharashtra. Pan–Aaapq2442A V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–2(3), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By:Ms.Alfiya Rozie, A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms.Alfiya Rozie, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

delay of 115 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the sufficient cause. Whereas the facts mentioned in the Affidavit/application are reasonable and the learned D.R. has no specific objections. Accordingly, the delay is condoned

Abid Mustafa Khan, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 502/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleabid Mustafa Khan, 301, Mayfair Residency, Raj Nagar Opp. Green Park, Nagpur 440 013, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Aqipk9595G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(2), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri K.K. Thakkar. A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Thakkar. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69A

delay and the delay was not deliberate act but the CIT(A) was not satisfied with the explanations and has not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine/ not maintainable. The assessee being aggrieved by the order has filed the appeal before ... Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay though the assessee has explained with supporting details .The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and prayed

Arpita Mathew Arukakkal, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 5(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 501/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalearpita Mathew Arukakkal, Residency Road, Sadar Nagpur- 440001, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Arkpm3965D V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–5(3), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By:Shri.Sapan Usrethe.A.R. Revenue By :Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Sapan Usrethe.A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 148Section 151(1)

learned National Faceless Appeal Centre was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay without properly considering the application for condonation of delay filed during the appellate proceedings. 2 Arpita Mathew Arukakkal 2. On the facts and circumstances of case the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre ... assessee has filed the detailed explanations for the delay but the CIT(A) was not satisfied with the explanations and has not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine/ not maintainable. The assessee being aggrieved by the order has filed the appeal before

Prakash Sheshrao Wankhede, Koradi Kamptee, Nagpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 461/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprakash Sheshrao Wankhede, Khaprikoradi, Ward No.6 Near Hanuman Mandir Tehsil Kamptee, Koradi (Nv) ……………. Appellant Nagpur -441 111, Maharashtra. Pan–Abypw7048B V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: None Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR

Section 54F

incorrect, unjustifiable, excessive and should be quashed. The CIT(A) looking into the facts & circumstances would have condoned the delay of 21 days in tiling of appeal since the 2 Prakash Sheshrao Wankhede ITA no.461/NAG./2025 assessee being a person with no means working as Watchman. The assessee was advised ... appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assessee has filed an application and affidavit for 3 Prakash Sheshrao Wankhede ITA no.461/NAG./2025 condonation of delay explaining the sufficient cause. Whereas the facts mentioned in the application/affidavit are reasonable and the learned D.R. has no specific objections. Accordingly, the delay

Sudam Kisanrao Wani, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 460/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesudam Kisanrao Wani, Plot No.86A, Vitthal Nagar–Ii Hudkeshwar, Maiginagar ……………. Appellant Nagpur -440 034, Maharashtra. Pan- Aaypw9239K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(1), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.Naresh Jakhotia.A.R. Revenue By : Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Naresh Jakhotia.A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 144Section 148Section 69

assessee has filed the detailed explanations for the delay but the CIT(A) was not satisfied with the explanations and has not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine/ not maintainable. The assessee being aggrieved by the order has filed the appeal before ... Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay though the assessee has explained with supporting details that the assessee is a salaried employee and after retirement from the Railways, the assessee has made

Mulchand Jaganath Ragit, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 454/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Abhay Agrawal. A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha. Sr. D.R

Section 148Section 45

delay of 49 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay explaining the sufficient cause. Whereas the facts mentioned in the Affidavit are reasonable and the learned D.R. has no specific objections. Accordingly, the delay is condoned

Purushottam Jairam & Co., Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 434/NAG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalepurshottam Jairam & Co. Plot No.69, Lakadganj Nagpur 440 008, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan- Aabfp8919J V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(3), Nagpur Assessee By: None(Letter Dt 7.10.2025) Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: None(Letter dt 7.10.2025)For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.SR.DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

delay of 44 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assessee has filed an application and affidavit for condonation of delay explaining the sufficient cause. Whereas the facts mentioned in the application/Affidavit are reasonable and the learned D.R. has no specific objections. Accordingly, the delay

Leena Ashok Zope, Akola vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Akola

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

ITA 428/NAG/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleleena Ashok Zope, At Post Kurum, Tq. Murtizapur Dist. Akola -444 115, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan- Aatpz1101G V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–3, Aayakar Bhawan, ……………. Respondent Akola-444001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Manoj G. Moryani.Ar Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Manoj G. Moryani.ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 56(1)(x)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

delay of 42 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assessee has filed an application and affidavit for condonation of delay explaining the sufficient cause. Whereas the facts mentioned in the Affidavit are reasonable and the learned D.R. has no specific objections. Accordingly, the delay