“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

Gopal Bhaskar Chaudhari, Valsad vs. ITO Ward 3, Vapi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 646/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: None for the assesseeFor Respondent: Mr. J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DR

Section 253(3)Section 5

Registry had duly pointed out this defect and intimated the assessee vide communication dated 05.06.2025, requesting him to file a proper application for condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit and relevant documentary evidence explaining the reasons for such delay. 3. Despite such opportunity and intimation, the assessee has neither ... from the date of communication of the order appealed against. The ITA Nos. 645 & 646/SRT/2025 3 Gopal Bhaskar Chaudhari Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay in filing such appeal only upon satisfaction that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting it within the prescribed time. The term

Gopal Bhaskar Chaudhari, Valsad vs. ITO Ward 3, Vapi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 645/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: None for the assesseeFor Respondent: Mr. J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DR

Section 253(3)Section 5

Dipak Chandrakantbhai Ughadpaga, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(6), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of cost as directed hereinabove

ITA 644/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Dipak Chandrakantbhai Ito Ward 1(3)(6), Ughadpaga, Room No. 303, 3Rd Floor, Income 23, Premji Nagar, Adajan Road, Vs. Tax Office, Anavil Business Opp. Shital Studio, Nr. Gujarat Centre, Adajan, Gas Circle, Surat-395007. Surat-395009. Pan No. Aaypu 8592 K Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Rasesh Shah, CA

Section 115BSection 5Section 69A

matter deserves consideration on merits. 4 Dipak Chandrakantbhai Ughadpaga 3.2 On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) strongly opposed the condonation of delay, contending that the assessee has shown a repeated pattern of non-cooperation, not only before the Tribunal but also before the lower authorities ... assessee has shown willingness to make amends by agreeing to bear the cost. 3.4 Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we condone the delay of 125 days, but subject to the condition that the assessee shall deposit a cost of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the Prime

Shri Pragnesh Lallubhai Patel, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-4, Navsari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is unadmitted

ITA 940/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat08 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Shri Pragnesh Lallubhai Patel, Ito Ward-4, At Butlav, Post Dabhalai, Room No. 203, Swapnalok Soc. Navsari,-396466. Vs. Nr. Kaliawadi Bridge, Navsari, Gujarat-396445. Pan No. Aodpp 0260 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rasesh Shah, CA

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 69

required to file the appeal on 20.08.2022, whereas the same has been instituted only on 05.09.2024. In support of the application seeking condonation of delay, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon the affidavit of the assessee explaining the reasons which, according to him, constitute a “sufficient cause” within the meaning ... pandemic was operationally excluded the effective delay would stand substantially reduced. It was thus urged that the appeal deserves to be admitted by condoning the delay in the interest of substantial justice. 5.Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently opposed the condonation, contending that the explanation furnished by the assessee

Madhur Laxman Gadikar, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(1), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 406/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemadhur Laxman Gadikar, Kharbikar Mohalla, House No.426–B Ward No.27, Golibar Chowk ……………. Appellant Jaganath Gol, Nagpur-440018, Maharashtra, Pan – Avzpg3725G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(1), Nagpur Assessee By :Shri Abhishek Kumar. A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. D.R.

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

Section 115BSection 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

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

Mahatma Fuley Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahkari Pat Sanstha, Karajgaon vs. ITO, Ward 3, Amravati

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

ITA 398/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemahatma Fuley Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Karajgaon Taluka, Anjangaon Surji ……………. Appellant Amravati-444805, Maharashtra. Pan–Aabam2153Q V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3, Saturna, Amravati-444601, Maharashtra. Assessee By : Shri Ratan Sharma. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha. Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Ratan Sharma. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha. Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

delay of 108 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse 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

Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles Pvt Ltd, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-1, Eluru

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

ITA 402/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.402/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles (P) Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer – Tds Ward-1 C/O. Nsl Textiles Limited Income Tax Office, Kks Towers Engee House, 3Rd Floor, 4Th Line R.R. Pet, Eluru – 534002 Chadramouli Nagar, Guntur – 522007 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aadcs1442E] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate : Dr. Aparna Villuri,Sr.Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025

Section 201(1)Section 40

appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: - “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... beyond the control of the appellant. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. Therefore, the appellant prays the hon'ble ITAT to kindly condone the delay in filing the appeal and pass appropriate orders in the interest of rendering substantial justice.” 3. On perusal of the contents of the affidavit

Usha Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 320/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 14ySection 234ASection 234B

there is delay of 334 days in filing the appeal of the assessee for which the assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld.DR objected to such inordinate delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 2.3 After hearing both ... parties and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench noticed that the assessee has not adduced any document / application for condonation of delay as to the delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT for which the Bench imposes cost of Rs.1,000/- upon the assessee as to late

Arvind Kumar Jolly, Ambala vs. Addl/JCIT (A)-2 Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 952/CHANDI/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2021-2022

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar Jolly (Assessee)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 250

pointed out that the present appeal is barred by limitation by 56 days for which the assessee had filed the condonation application for condoning the delay. 3. Ld. DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay. 4. After considering the condonation application filed by the assessee in the present appeal ... condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The assessee, a retired employee of Union Bank of India, received a sum of Rs.9,56,280/- on account of leave encashment upon his superannuation. He filed his return of income on 30.11.2021 claiming

Spiritual Life Trust, Chandigarh vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir 1(1) Chandigarh, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 909/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 908 & 909/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24 Spiritual Life Trust, Vs The Dcit/Acit, 1332, Sector 18-C, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aayts9358P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025 Virtual Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 80G(5)

909/CHD/2025 A.Y.2023-24 2 2. The Registry has pointed out that appeals are time barred by 136 days. The assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay. In the application, it has been submitted that Trustees were occupied with various preparatory arrangements of an event scheduled outside India and therefore, they ... could be inferred that Trustees might have failed to take note of the proceedings before ld. CIT (E) well in time. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeals. 4. A perusal of the record would indicate that assessee has applied for registration as a Charitable Institution. Though

Spiritual Life Trust, Chandigarh vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir 1(1) Chandigarh, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 908/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 80G(5)

Paramjeet Singh, Yamuna Nagar vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle (2), Chandigarh, DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-2

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 204/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 204/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Paramjeet Singh Dcit-Central Circle-2 बनाम/ (C/O Rajiv Goel & Associates) Sector-17 Sco No 823-24, Sector 22-A Chandigarh-160017 Vs. Chandigarh-160022 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Astps-8898-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhruv Goel(Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) -Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 26-09-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 153A Of The Act On 23-06-2021. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.82.18 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel(CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) -Ld. AR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

fide trust placed on legal counsel and not due to willful default on the part of the assessee. The Ld. CIT-DR opposed condonation of delay. However, after considering the averments made in condonation petition and keeping in mind the guiding principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court ... case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987; (2) TMI 61 SC), we condone the delay and proceed for disposal of the appeal on merits. 3. The assessee belongs to Majha group of cases. The assessee- group having nine entities was subjected to search action by the department

Jap Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(2) Previously ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1609/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 250Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 13.10.2023 passed for A.Y. 2011-12. Application for Condonation of Delay: 2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 603 days in filing of appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal ... Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)] has held that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering condonation of delay so as to advance substantial justice. The Hon’ble Court emphasized that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other

Veeraballi Naga Basi Reddy, Kadapa vs. ITO., Ward - 1, Kadapa

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 451/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.451/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Veeraballi Naga Basi Reddy, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward 1, Kadapa. Kadapa. Pan: Aszpr1589G (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 31.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 832 days. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi vide the impugned order without condoning the delay dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before ... find that there is a delay of 15 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed condonation petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the delay has occurred on account of Ld. AR being out of station during the ITA No.451/Hyd/2025 4 period of delay

Srinivasarao Kolasani, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.433/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Srinivasa Rao Kolasani, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward 9(1), Pan: Ahwpk6333P Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Snsr Chinmai, Adv. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 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 26.10.2023 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 15.02.2019 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,76,020/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 21.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The

For Appellant: SNSR Chinmai, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

find that there is a delay of 436 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 undergoing physiotherapy, treatment for Cervical Traction ... along with Affidavit. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, having regard to the averments made in the Affidavit seeking the condonation of delay is a fit case to condone the delay of 436 days. Accordingly, I condone the delay of 436 days in filing the appeal before

Mulakala Mohan Krishna, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, SR-AR

Section 143(1)Section 80I

part of the assessee, and the delay was purely due to a procedural error. The Ld. AR prayed before the bench for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal and admission of the appeal for adjudication. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) fairly submitted that ... serious objection to the condonation of delay, considering that the assessee had initially filed the appeal within the stipulated period and the delay was due to a bona fide mistake. ITA No.432/Hyd/2025 3 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts clearly

Gangamagrotech, Hindupur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hindupur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 1217/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Sri TV Vamshidhar, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 274Section 44ASection 68

appeal before the Tribunal. The 2 ITA.No.1217/Hyd./2025 assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay and pleaded for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons explained by the assessee for not filing the appeal within the time allowed under ... delay of 268 days in filing the appeal. He, therefore, prayed that the delay caused due to inadvertent mistake and pleaded for condonation of delay of 268 days in filing the appeal before 3 ITA.No.1217/Hyd./2025 the Tribunal and the appeal be entertained for adjudication on merits

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata vs. Eskag Sanjeevani Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1638/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

approvals from the competent authorities and accordingly, the delay may be condoned. The ld. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. ITA No. 1638 & 1639/KOL/2024 ESKAG Sanjeevani Pvt. Ltd; A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21 Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone

Kurubarahalli Prathamika Krushi Pathina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Ramanagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramanagar

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 350/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250(6)

should have been more vigilant in tracking their cases. Mere ignorance or casual approach is not a good ground. However, the law on condonation of delay is settled. Hon’ble Courts and Tribunals have repeatedly held that justice should not be denied for technical reasons. If there is some cause ... condonation. 6. We have considered his objection. Still, in the interest of justice, we hold that delay deserves to be condoned. We therefore condone the delay in all three appeals. Appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. On merits, we note that the orders of the Assessing Officer

Kyasapura Vevasaya Seva Sahakara Bank Niyamitha Kyasapur, Ramanagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramanagar

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 349/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250(6)