“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

Ashvinbhai Laxmanbhai Karkar, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(1)(5), Surat

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

ITA 82/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

very outset, we noticed that there is delay of 655 days in filing present appeal and in this regard an affidavit for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under: Ashvinbhai Laxmanbhai Karkar, aged about 49 years old, 18, Sangana ... beyond my control. I respectfully submit that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional. 5. I, therefore, humbly request Your Honour to kindly condone the delay in the interest of justice and equity, and to set aside the impugned orders, restoring the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer

Bhuvnesh Bimalchand Jain, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(6), Surat

ITA 722/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kantι.Τ.Α. No.721 & 722/Srt/2025

Section 250

outset, we noticed that there is delay of 33 days in filing the present appeal and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein the same is reproduced herein below: I am filing herewith appeal against order ... theapplication and requested for dismissal of the same. 5. After having heard the counsels for both the parties on theapplication for seeking condonation of delay and considering theentire factual position as explained before us and also keeping inview the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the caseof

Bhuvnesh Bimalchand Jain, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(2)(6), Surat

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

ITA 721/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 250

outset, we noticed that there is delay of 33 days in filing the present appeal and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein the same is reproduced herein below: I am filing herewith appeal against order ... theapplication and requested for dismissal of the same. 5. After having heard the counsels for both the parties on theapplication for seeking condonation of delay and Bhuvnesh Bimalchand Jain, Surat. considering theentire factual position as explained before us and also keeping inview the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme

Thakorbhai Chhaganbhai Mori, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Bharuch

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

ITA 405/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat09 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

very outset, we noticed that there is delay of 338 days in filing present appeal and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under: 2 Thakorbhai Chhaganbhai Mori. 1. The Ld. A.O. has passed ... Considering the merits of the case as also the genuine and bonafide reasons is made to your honours to admit the present appeal condoning the delay under which the appellant was unable to file the appeal in time, a humble request particularly taking into account the fact that for want

Brijwasi Developers Private Limited, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 280/SRT/2025[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Surat09 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 250

very outset, we noticed that there is delay of 855 days in filing present appeal and in this regard an affidavit for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under: 2 Brijwasi Developers Pvt Ltd, Surat. 1. That ... prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time. 3 Brijwasi Developers Pvt Ltd, Surat. 6) I beg to condone the delay in filing the appeal before Honorable Tribunal. 7) I submit that the case is a meritorious one and requires consideration. 3. On the other

Maniben Dalpatbhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 157/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 250

limit. The taxpayer should not be deprived of justice due to my mistake. Hence, this affidavit is made for the purpose of requesting condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay in filing the appeal occurred solely due to my inadvertent mistake and without any intention or malafide motive ... justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 4. Since we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal before

Kanhaiya Krushi Kendra, Yavatmal vs. ITO Ward -1, Yavatmal

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

ITA 427/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekanhaiya Krushi Kendra Main Bazar Line, Fulsa Wangi Mahagaon Dist. ……………. Appellant Yavatmal-445001, Maharashtra. Pan – Aaofk4226A V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–1, ……………. Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Yavatmal-445001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shriabhishek Kumar, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: ShriAbhishek Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 234ASection 68

there is a delay 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

Manoj Kumar Gangadharan, Bhopal vs. ITO (It and Tp) Bhopal, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 671/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 274

stated therein. The core ground and reasons for dismissal of 1st appeal was as under:- “There exists no sufficient or good reason for condoning inordinate delays of more than 560 days in filing appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. Accordingly I decline to condone the delay ... granting immunity from penalty U/s 270A in an arbitrary manner. 2. That Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty by arbitrarily rejecting condonation of delay application in filing the first appeal of appellant and consequently dismissing the first appeal in an arbitrary manner. 3. That the assessee craves leave

Manoj Kumar Gangadharan, Bhopal vs. ITO (It and Tp) Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 670/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 274

National Law Institute University, Bhopal vs. DCIT(Exemption), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

ITA 423/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

stamp, explaining the reason of delay as under: “To The Hon'ble Members, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench Subject: Application for Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal in Case of National Law Institute university, Bhopal PAN No AAAJNO534C Respected Members, With reference to the subject cited above ... assessee is discussed and the Ld. DR for revenue left this issue for the wisdom of bench without raising any objection against condonation of delay. After a careful consideration, the delay of 78/74 days is condoned taking into account the explanation given by assessee in above application in the light

Women Children Welfare and Rural Development Society, Ajmer vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur

ITA 1062/JPR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Kedawat, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

note raised by the Registry, present appeal came to be presented on 147 days after the prescribed period of limitation. 3. To seek condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, applicant society has submitted an application. So, firstly, arguments have been advanced on the application seeking condonation of delay

Sanand Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Exemption, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1601/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : - Sanand Agricultural Produce Market Ito, Ward-2 Committee, Railway Station Road Exemption Main Road, Sanand, Ahmedabad. Vejalpur Pan : Aaals 0127 L. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “ the Act”] dated 09.12.2022. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the outset, it is noted that the appeal of the assessee has been filed belatedly with a delay of 174 days ... assessee filed an 2 application for condonation of delay accompanied with a duly sworn affidavit of the Secretary of the Sanand Agricultural Produce Market Committee explaining the reasons for the delay. 2.2 In the said affidavit, it has been explained that subsequent to the order of the learned

Nirakar Trust, Vadodara vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1083/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : - Nirakar Trust Cit(Exemption) 11, Anandsagar Apartment Vejalpur Anand Sagar Society Ahmedabad. Jetalpur Road Vadodara 390 007 Pan : Aabtn 8200 G (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Viranch Modi, Ca Assessee By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] and, in consequence, cancelled the earlier provisional approval granted. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the threshold, there is a delay of 135 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee moved a condonation application supported by 2 an affidavit ... fide or deliberate inaction. 2.2 During hearing on the condonation issue, the learned Departmental Representative did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay. Having considered the affidavit, the sequence of events and the absence of any contrary material, we are satisfied that the assessee has shown sufficient

Ramalingaiah Karnati, Nalgonda vs. ITO Ward-1, Nalgonda

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

ITA 258/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.258/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Ramalingaiah Karnati, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Nalgonda. Nalgonda. Pan: Asypk1824C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश/Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 16.12.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From The Business. The Return Of Income For The Asst. Year 2017-18 Was Filed On 15.12.2018 Disclosing Income Of Rs.4,13,570/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By Ito Vide Order Dated 18.12.2019 Passed Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs.22,27,070/-. While

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

No.258/Hyd/2025 3 explanation. Having regard, the explanation offered for the delay, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for condonation of delay, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The only issue that arises

Anandarao Kota, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 238/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.238/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2015-16) Shri Anandarao Kota, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward 9(1), Pan: Cvopk0669Q Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश/Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27.07.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is That The Assessee Is An Individual, No Regular Return Of Income U/S.139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Was Filed For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessing Officer Based On The Information That The Assessee Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.1,03,97,300/- In The Savings Bank Account Formed Opinion That The Income Had Escaped Assessment

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 282(1)

find that there is a delay of 140 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed an Affidavit seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the C.A. who is looking after the tax matter had not brought to the notice of assessee, the order passed ... petition, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay of 140 days, therefore delay is condoned and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 6. On perusal of written submissions of the assessee

Festino Vincom Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Festino Vincom Limited Income Tax Officer Cabin 11, Room No. 2, 2Nd Floor, Office Of Income Tax Shyam Chambers, 7/1A Grant Officer, Ward 2(2), Kolkata, Vs. Lane, Kolkata, West Bengal,700069 West Bengal,700012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcf3822F Assessee By : Shri B.K. Sahoo, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Sahoo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149

deliberate nor willful and it was prayed that the same may be condoned. 03. The ld. DR on the other hand opposed the condonation of delay on the ground that no plausible reasons were presented for the delay. 04. We find that the reasons for delay in filing the appeal ... Katiji [1987] 1987 taxmann.com 1072 (SC).Considering all these facts and the ratio laid down in the above decision, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 05. The issue raised in grounds no. 1 is a technical and legal issue and is against

DCIT, Central Ceicle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Jupiter International Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 296/KOL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Jupiter International Limited Dcit, Central Circle (4) Unnayanam 20A, Ashutosh Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Chowdhury Avenue, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Vs. Kolkata-700019 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj6956B Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Shri P Sarkar, Ms. Nandini Nandini Sureka, Ars Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra ChoudhuryFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 254Section 68

International Limited: A.Y. 2009-10 and accordingly, the delay may be condoned. The ld. 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. 03. The only issue raised

M/S. Alternative for India Development, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-4, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1732/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1732/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. K. Vishwa Padmanabhan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

assessee is delayed by 198 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay, duly supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for such belated filing. In the said petition, the assessee has, submitted that the delay occurred ... account of pursuing alternate remedy. The ld.DR, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the condonation of delay and contended that the assessee has failed to demonstrate any justifiable or bona fide reason warranting condonation under law. We have carefully considered the reasons adduced by the assessee in the condonation

DCIT, Ltu, Circle- 1 & 2, New Delhi vs. Indian Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed at the behest of the assessee to settle the issue under VSVS

ITA 6039/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekdcit, Ltu, Circle 1 & 2, Vs. India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Great Eastern Centre, New Delhi. 70, Nehru Place, Ifci Tower, New Delhi – 110 019. (Pan : Aabci7552F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date Of Order : 09.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals),-44, New Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 29.06.2018 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That Since The Assessee Has Settled The Issue Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (In Short ‘Vsvs’), Hence, The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Has Become Infructuous & Deserves To Be Dismissed As Infructuous. In This Regard

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR

appeals in the event assessee’s declaration made under VSVS is not accepted, the Registry shall not insist for filing of application for condonation of delay, if the Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order is filed beyond time on account of delay in communication of outcome under VSVS. [Revenue

M/S. Nitaben Bharatkumar Parekh, Surat vs. Addl/JCIT (A)-2, Chennai

In the result, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 731/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 M/S Nitaben Bharatkumar Add/Jcit(A)-2, Chennai, Parekh, Surat. 33 Royal Bunglows, Opp. Laxmi Vs. Bunglows Vesu Surat-395007. Pan No. Adlpp 7174 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Uke, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Ronak Parekh, AR

Section 115BSection 5Section 69A

days in filing the present appeal, as communicated by the Registry vide its letter dated 09.02.2025. In support of the prayer for condonation of delay, the assessee has filed a duly sworn affidavit explaining the circumstances which occasioned such delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the affidavit ... assessee and therefore, could not respond to faceless procedure The relevant portion of the said affidavit reads as under: “Sub.: Application for Condonation of Delay in Filing of appeal for A.Y 2017-18 Reg : NITABEN BHARATKUMAR PAREKH 33 ROYAL BUNGLOWS, OPP LAXMI BUNGLOWS VESU SURAT 395007, Gujarat. PAN. ADLPP7174Q