“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

Shree Sant Tukaram Maharaj Seva Mandal Ballarpur Bamni, Chandrapur vs. ITO Ward -3 Exemp, Nagpur

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

ITA 402/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Mahavir Atal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR

following grounds of appeal:– “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT Appeals was justified in rejecting the condonation of delay in filing CIT Appeals without adjudicating on merits. 2. The appellant craves leave to add or alter any other ground that may be taken ... Whereas, the assessee has filed the 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

State Bank of Hyderabad ( Presently Merged With Sbi), Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-1, Vijayawada

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bank are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 383/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 382 & 383/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) State Bank Of Hyderabad Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Presently Merged With (Tds), State Bank Of India), Tds Ward-1, South Central Railway Vijayawada. Branch, Near Railway Station, Vijayawada- 520001. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Smt. Venkata Suseela, Advocate (For Sri M.V. Prasad, Ca) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Smt. Venkata SuseelaFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 192Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, that had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering

State Bank of Hyderabad (Presently Merged With Sbi), Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-1, Vijayawada

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bank are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 382/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Venkata SuseelaFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 192Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Vijayawada

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

ITA 234/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.234/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 143(1)Section 154

appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee dated 06.08.2025, along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition, which is as under: - “5. The reasons for delay are detailed as under: o The CIT (Appeals ... deliberate nor due to any negligence but caused due to bonafide reasons stated above. 8. I humbly request the Honourable Tribunal to kindly condone the delay of 222 days in the interest of justice and allow the appeal to be decided on merits. 9. I state that the present affidavit

Union Bank of India Rgpv - Bhopal, Bhopal vs. ACIT(TDS), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 839/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 154Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

INDORE BENCH, INDORE Appeal No. : ITA 838/IND/2024 _ Asesseee : Union Bank of India RGPV - Bhopal AY. : 2012-13 Regarding : Condonation — Request Reg. APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOURS 1. The order of the Id CIT(A) is dated 27.01.2023. The appeal could have been filed ... interest of justice the delay so caused may kindly be éondoned by this Hon’ble Court. s The appellant respectfully prays for condonation of delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice. Bhopal , Date: a = ea »\Applicant an GT 2 + 3 ( saul Page 3 of 6 4. Union

Union Bank of India Rgpv - Bhopal, Bhopal vs. ACIT(TDS), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 838/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 154Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

Princess Infra & Development LLP, Kota vs. ACIT-Central Circle-Kota, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

ITA 859/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 56(2)(X)Section 68

Appeal) has grossly erred in dismissing the appeal on ground of delay without providing opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay in filling appeal, which is against the principal of natural justice and is illegal and bad in law. M/S. PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP, KOTA VS ACIT, CENTRAL ... Appeal) has grossly erred in dismissing the appeal on ground of delay without providing opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay in filling appeal, which is against the principal of natural justice and is illegal and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances

Princess Infra & Development LLP, Kota vs. ACIT-Central Circle-Kota, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

ITA 858/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 56(2)(X)Section 68

Pramila Agarwal, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 531/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

delayed by 108 days. The assessee has filed an application submitting therein the reasons for delay in filing the appeal and prayed for condonation of delay. In support of the application, the assessee has also filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay, which is being reproduced hereunder:- "In the aforesaid ... days. In the circumstances of the matter it is humbly prayed to your goodself to please accept the application / prayer of the condonation of delay which is merely of 168 days and to please be kind enough to direct the listing of the appeal for disposal on the merits

Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Exemption, Chandigarh

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 337/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 237/Chd/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29- 30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit, बनाम Circle 2, Vs. Exemption, Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.337 To 339/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29- 30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit बनाम Exemption, Vs. Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 63/Chd/2021 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29-30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit बनाम Exemptions, Vs. Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, Sh. Ashok Goyal, Ca & Sh. Sifatfreet Singh, Ca राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: The Captioned Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) For Different Assessment Years, As Per The Details Given Below: S.No.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 263

339/Chd/2023 are filed belatedly by one day in each case. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted an application praying for condonation of delay giving identical reasons in each case which is reproduced as under: May 28, 2023 To The Assistant Registrar, Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh ... Bench, Chandigarh. Sub: Request for condonation of delay (Delay of one day) in filing the Appeal No. ITA/337/CHANDI/2023, Assessment Year 2016-17, Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula Vs. DCIT, Exemption, Chandigarh Madam, Most humbly the following prayer is made before this Hon'ble Bench with

Bhushan Balasaheb Bagul, Dhule vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward -1, Dhule

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

ITA 1253/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

informed that there is delay of 562 days in preferring the instant appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeal. 3. After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 562 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to non compliance

Saadnakari Hazarathaiah, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Proddatur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 660/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.660/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Shri Sadnakari Hazarathaiah, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Adfph7103R Proddatur. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 145Section 147Section 250Section 68

find that there is a delay of 440 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed condonation petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that he was not aware of the order passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by NFAC since ... settled position of law for the purpose of computing limitation period, I am of the considered opinion that there is reasonable cause to condone the delay of 440 days in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 6.1 The only issue that arises

Venkata Subba Reddy Karnati, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Proddatur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 637/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.637/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Shri Venkata Subba Reddy Income Tax Officer, Vs. Karnati, Ward-1, Hyderabad. Proddatur. Pan:Ahjpv4271E (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 07.09.2023

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 145Section 147Section 250Section 68

find that there is a delay of 496 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed condonation petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that he was not aware of the order passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by NFAC since ... settled position of law for the purpose of computing limitation period, I am of the considered opinion that there is reasonable cause to condone the delay of 496 days in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. ITA No.637/Hyd/2025 5 6.1 The only issue

Aare Venkata Ramanaiah, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Proddatur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 633/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.633/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Shri Aare Venkata Ramanaiah, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Aoopr0993M Proddatur. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 145Section 147Section 250Section 68

find that there is a delay of 373 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed condonation petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that he was not aware of the order passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by NFAC since ... settled position of law for the purpose of computing limitation period, I am of the considered opinion that there is reasonable cause to condone the delay of 373 days in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 6.1 The only issue that arises

Srinivas Arra, Karimnagar vs. ITO., Ward-2, Karimnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1184/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1184/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Srinivas Arra, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Karimnagar. Pan: Aespa4907Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P. Vinod, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 08.11.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2017-18 Was Filed On 30.03.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,80,730/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 27.09.2021 Passed U/S.147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 147Section 250(6)

find that there is a delay of 169 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee filed an Affidavit seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of the fact that the assessee was not aware of the impugned order ... absence of any evidence to the contrary, having ITA No.1184/Hyd/2025 3 regard to the averments made in the Affidavit seeking the condonation of delay is a fit case to condone the delay of 169 days. Accordingly, I condone the delay of 169 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal

Salahuddin Mohammed, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1047/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1047/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Salahuddin Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 11(1) Pan: Adgpm5833N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Hemalatha K राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Salahuddin Mohammed, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (“Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 10.08.2024 For The A.Y 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 231 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit

For Appellant: CA Hemalatha KFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

that there is a delay of 231 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit, Page 1 of 6 ITA No 1047 of 2025 Salahuddin Mohammed Secunderabad explaining the reasons for such delay. The Learned ... appeal be admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”), on the other hand, objected to the condonation of delay, contending that the reason furnished by the assessee does not constitute a reasonable cause. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused

Vijay Tiles & Cement Products, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1007/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1007/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vijay Tiles & Cement Vs. Assistant Cit Products, Hyderabad Circle 11(1) Pan: Aagfv3841A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Vijay Tiles & Cement Products (“The Assessee”) Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 05/12/2024 For The A.Y 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 98 Days In Filing Of The Appeal Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Accompanied By An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. In This Regard, The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. Ar”) Invited Our Attention To Para 4

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

that there is a delay of 98 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. In this regard, the Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) invited our attention to para ... condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) objected to the condonation of delay and contended that the reason explained by the assessee is not sufficient to condone the delay. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused

F.V. 112 the Villupuram District Public Health Department Employees Coop Thrift and Credit Society, Villupuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Villupuram

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 2047/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2047/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Fv 112 The Villupuram District Public The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Health Department Employees Co-Op. Ward-1, Thrift & Credit Society, 60, Vilupuram. Kandasamy Layout, 1St Street, (K.K. Road), Villupuram 605 602, Viluppuram [Pan: Aaaaf4857B]

For Appellant: Shri G. Reddi Prakash, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80P

There is a delay of 85 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed petition along with affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of the appeal. On perusal of the aforesaid reasons in the condonation application, we are of the view that there ... Vilupuram. :- 2 -: sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee, a cooperative credit society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative

Ft 92 the Vilupuram and Tindivanam Gov Arts College Teaching and Non-Teaching Staffs Co-Op Society, Vilupuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Vilupuram

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 2046/CHNY/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2046/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri G. Reddi Prakash, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

There is a delay of 450 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed petition along with affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of the appeal. On perusal of the aforesaid reasons in the condonation application, we are of the view that there

Bharti Ramchandani, India vs. Income Tax Officer 34(1)(1), India

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4394/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bharti Ramchandani Ito - 34(1)(1), Mumbai B 2401, Oberoi Esquire, Vs 230D, Kautilya Bhavan, Mohan Gokhale Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Goregaon East S.O., Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400063. [Pan: Anppr0395D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Jigar Mehta, Ca Revenue By Shri Praveen K. Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution 04.07.2025 Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 254(1)Section 69A

assessee submits that there is delay of 338 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The assessee has filed her affidavit for seeking condonation of delay. The learned AR of the assessee submits that assessee was non-resident and due to long standing residence abroad she was not aware about income ... however before CIT(A)l the assessee has not furnished the details of source of income of her husband. On the plea of condonation of delay raised by learned AR of the assessee, the learned SR DR of the revenue submits that bench may take decision in accordance with