← All Phrases

“condonation of delay”

AppealsSection 249Section 24912,312 judgments

The decision most relied on for condonation of delay is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on condonation of delay

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.
2 SCC 107 · 1987 · Supreme Court
451
citing judgments

Courts must adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, preferring to decide cases on their merits rather than allowing technicalities of limitation to scuttle justice. This principle applies to ensure the substantive rights of parties are not defeated by minor delays.

Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy
7 SCC 123 · 1998 · Supreme Court
368
citing judgments

The Supreme Court outlines the principles for condoning delay in filing appeals, stating that a litigant's lapse is not always a bar if the explanation is bona fide and not a dilatory strategy. Courts should show utmost consideration to suitors and prioritize substantial justice unless the delay is deliberately to gain time.

Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr
398 ITR 250 · 2017 · High Court
291
citing judgments

This case is cited as an authority supporting the condonation of delay in filing income tax appeals, particularly when an assessee presents a request for such condonation.

Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others
118 ITR 507 · 1979 · Supreme Court
268
citing judgments

For condoning delay, the term 'sufficient cause' must be interpreted liberally and purposively to advance justice. Delay not tainted by mala fides, gross negligence, or recklessness, and based on honestly obtained legal advice, constitutes sufficient cause.

Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
2025 INSC 382 · 2025 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

Non-deliberate procedural delays caused by circumstances beyond control must be condoned in the interest of substantial justice, even if the delay is significant, such as over 1500 days.

Vedabhai v. Santaram
253 ITR 798 · 2002 · Supreme Court
262
citing judgments

When substantial justice and technical considerations are in conflict, substantial justice should be prioritized. Condoning delay requires a cautious approach without malafide or dilatory tactics, and 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.

Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT
280 ITR 357 · 2006 · High Court
182
citing judgments

The expression "sufficient cause" for condoning delay in filing appeals must receive a liberal and purposive construction. This approach aims to advance substantial justice, which is of paramount importance.

Judgments citing condonation of delay

Chandra Prakash Vashistha, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(4), Jpr, Jaipur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1139/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal, C.A. (through V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh, Addl. CIT a
Section 10(10)Section 143(1)

prescribed 2 Chandra Prakash Vashistha, Jaipur. period of limitation for 959 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee-appellant filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, Ld. AR for the appellant-applicant has firstly advanced arguments on the point of condonation of delay

Chandra Shekhar Singh, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 354/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69A

liable to be set-aside. 2. Because the Ld CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant by not allowing condonation of delay in filing of I.T.A. No.354/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2020-21 2 the appeal under the most adverse circumstances beyond the control of the appellant

Alpeshbhai Baldevbhai Rabari, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1237/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-2018 Alpeshbhai Baldevbhai Rabari Ito, Ward-1 3, Rabarivas, Palaj Vs. Mehsana. Mehsana 384 410 Gujarat. Pan : Bwgpr 0788 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ar Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 226(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69A

been passed on 02.12.2019. Thus, there was a delay of approximately 620 days in filing the appeal. The assessee submitted an application for condonation of delay under section 249(3) of the Act, supported by an affidavit. The assessee explained that he was a graduate in commerce with Gujarati ... according to the CIT(A), could not be a valid ground for condonation. The learned CIT(A) accordingly rejected the application for condonation of delay and held that the appeal was not maintainable. Since the appeal was dismissed at the threshold, the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the grounds

Swapnil Balasaheb Shete, Shirala vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1701/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1701/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Swapnil Balasaheb Vs Nfac, Delhi Shete, Samarth Agencies, Main Road, 32, Shirala- 415408 Maharashtra Pan-Cpbps0193C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale-
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

dated 26.02.2024. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 294 days in filing of the instant appeal. Application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit is placed on record. After considering the contents of the affidavit and hearing Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), we find that the delay ... Supreme Court) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382) hereby condone the delay of 294 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However with the assistance

Deepak Singhal, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 561/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.561/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2017-2018 Deepak Singhal, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 027. Ward-4(1), Vs. Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Avvps0498L Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.02.2024 Of The Learned Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short “Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 144

outset, there is a delay of 332 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay, which is also supported by the affidavit of the assessee. Learned Authorised Representation of the Assessee Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate, has submitted that the assessee ... learned CIT(A) as clearly available in Form-35 filed before the learned CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay of 54 days in filing the appeal before him and dismissed the appeal of 4 ITA.No.561/Hyd./2025 the assessee in limine. Thus

Pranab Kanya Sangha, North Twnety Four Parganas vs. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 704/KOL/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2025-26 Pranab Kanya Sangha………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Barasat-I, Hridaypur, West Bengal-700127.. [Pan: Aaatp4743M] Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ashok Mukherjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 07, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(E)’] Rejecting The Application Filed In Form 10Ab For Final Approval As Per The Provisions Of Section 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

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

filed in Form 10AB for final approval was beyond the prescribed limit of the CBDT Circular and the CIT has no power to condone the delay in filing application in Form 10AB. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld. AR challenges the very ... approval has been granted on 09.03.2023 (d) the assessee has filed application for regular approval u/s 80G on 05.12.2024 in Form No.10AB with condonation of delay and reasons for such delay are identical as filed u/s 12A but the same has been rejected by the ld. CIT(E). 5.1 Having

Alok Kumar, Kanke Road vs. DCIT, Central Circle Two

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 201/RAN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

there is delay of 1846 days in filing all these appeals before this Tribunal, for which, the assessee has filed condonation application for condoning the delay. In the condonation application, the assessee has mentioned as under: "The assessee previous A.R. not intimated for such reassessment order passed on 29.12.2011 /153A/144 ... wherein there was delay of days and judicial precedents/case laws of Hon'ble Apex Court were cited and discussed and thereafter the Tribunal condoned the delay by holding as under: - 1. The Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji 1987 taxmann.com 1072, analyzed the provisions

Alok Kumar, Kanke Road vs. DCIT, Central Circle Two

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 200/RAN/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

there is delay of 1846 days in filing all these appeals before this Tribunal, for which, the assessee has filed condonation application for condoning the delay. In the condonation application, the assessee has mentioned as under: "The assessee previous A.R. not intimated for such reassessment order passed on 29.12.2011 /153A/144 ... wherein there was delay of days and judicial precedents/case laws of Hon'ble Apex Court were cited and discussed and thereafter the Tribunal condoned the delay by holding as under: - 1. The Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji 1987 taxmann.com 1072, analyzed the provisions

Alok Kumar, Kanke Road vs. DCIT, Central Circle Two

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 199/RAN/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

there is delay of 1846 days in filing all these appeals before this Tribunal, for which, the assessee has filed condonation application for condoning the delay. In the condonation application, the assessee has mentioned as under: "The assessee previous A.R. not intimated for such reassessment order passed on 29.12.2011 /153A/144 ... wherein there was delay of days and judicial precedents/case laws of Hon'ble Apex Court were cited and discussed and thereafter the Tribunal condoned the delay by holding as under: - 1. The Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji 1987 taxmann.com 1072, analyzed the provisions

Alok Kumar, Kanke Road vs. DCIT, Central Circle Two

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/RAN/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

there is delay of 1846 days in filing all these appeals before this Tribunal, for which, the assessee has filed condonation application for condoning the delay. In the condonation application, the assessee has mentioned as under: "The assessee previous A.R. not intimated for such reassessment order passed on 29.12.2011 /153A/144 ... wherein there was delay of days and judicial precedents/case laws of Hon'ble Apex Court were cited and discussed and thereafter the Tribunal condoned the delay by holding as under: - 1. The Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji 1987 taxmann.com 1072, analyzed the provisions

Alok Kumar, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Central Circle Two

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 185/RAN/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

there is delay of 1846 days in filing all these appeals before this Tribunal, for which, the assessee has filed condonation application for condoning the delay. In the condonation application, the assessee has mentioned as under: "The assessee previous A.R. not intimated for such reassessment order passed on 29.12.2011 /153A/144 ... wherein there was delay of days and judicial precedents/case laws of Hon'ble Apex Court were cited and discussed and thereafter the Tribunal condoned the delay by holding as under: - 1. The Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji 1987 taxmann.com 1072, analyzed the provisions

Psr Sustainability Foundation, Pune vs. CIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 1921/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Respondent: Appellant by None
Section 12ASection 5Section 80G

delay of 164 days and 72 days respectively in preferring the instant appeals before this Tribunal. Appellant has filed application(s) for condonation of delay explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeals. “4. Reason for Delay in Filing the Appeal: 4.1. Initial Guidance and Reapplication ... bonafide reasons is condoned. Following are various judicial precedents: i. N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SSC 123 It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only

Psr Sustainability Foundation, Pune vs. CIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 1920/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Respondent: Appellant by None
Section 12ASection 5Section 80G

delay of 164 days and 72 days respectively in preferring the instant appeals before this Tribunal. Appellant has filed application(s) for condonation of delay explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeals. “4. Reason for Delay in Filing the Appeal: 4.1. Initial Guidance and Reapplication ... bonafide reasons is condoned. Following are various judicial precedents: i. N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SSC 123 It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only

Heena G Jain, Chennai vs. ACIT/DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2058/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2058/Chny/2025 िनधा7रण वष7 /Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Shrey Kumar M. Jain, C.A GHFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 6 years and 17 days. The Ld. CIT(A), however, declined to condone the delay on the ground that no satisfactory explanation was offered. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Before us, the ld. Counsel ... assessee has given reasons for the delay but the same was not appreciated by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he pleaded that after condoning the delay, the assessee may be given chance to prosecute the case before the lower authority. The Ld. DR relied upon the order

The Chandrasekarapuram Co-Operative Wholesale Stores Ltd., Thanjavur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2570/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. N. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 143(2)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

delay of 161 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which the assessee has filed affidavit along with petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal stating the reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the circumstances beyond

B Y L Nair Charitable Hospital Poor Patients Fund, Mumbai vs. Exem. Ward 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, subject to verification, the appeal of the

ITA 1568/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Dani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui,(Sr. DR)
Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the provisions of CBDT Circular No. 6/2020 dated 19th February 2020, which explicitly allows the condonation of delay in filing Form 9A and Form 10 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, subject to conditions that were met in the present case ... That the Learned CIT(A) has ignored the fact that non-condonation of delay in filing the Return of Income, despite fulfilling the conditions set forth in the aforementioned CBDT circulars, results in undue hardship to the Appellant, which goes against the intent of the circular. 6. That the Learned

Jain Sanghatana Foundation-Jamnagar, Jamnagar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 359/RJT/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Oct 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 359/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2025-26) Jain Sanghatana Foundation -Jamnagar, Cit (Exemption), Ahmedabad Vs. 15 Sidhbath Complex, K V Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Anandnagar- Jamnagar - 361001 Prahladnagar Road, Ahmedabad - 380015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajaj8198C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 6Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

outset, that the appeal filed late by 90 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The crux of the application for delay is as under; “1. We, Jain Sanghatana Foundation, are registered in affiliation body with the Bharatiya Jain ... assessee. After considering the reason explained by the Ld. AR. In the interest of justice, we take a judicious view and condoned the delay in filing appeal by 421 days. 7. Brief facts of the case that the Appellant is an AOP which has been engaged in the Charitable Activities

Sri Bhuvaneswari Nilayam, Tirumala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

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

ITA 519/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.519/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sri Bhuvaneswari Nilayam Vs. Income Tax Officer Tirumala Ward 1(1) Pan:Aawts0401P Guntur (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Uday & Gopi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Sri Bhuvaneswari Nilayam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-2,Ahmedabad (“Ld. First Appellate Authority”) Dated 15/02/2024 For The A.Y 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 242 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Accompanied By An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. In This Regard, The Learned

For Appellant: Shri Uday & Gopi, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Aparna Villuri, SR-DR
Section 11Section 143(1)

application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, taking a judicial and liberal approach, we condone the delay of 242 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds ... this Tribunal. Initially, this Tribunal, vide its order dated 20.02.2025, had dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want affidavit in support of condonation of delay. Later on vide Miscellaneous Application No.15/Viz/2025, this Tribunal recalled its order on 08.08.2025. During the proceedings before us, the Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted

Sandeep Kumar Sethia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 44(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 584/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 24 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “1. Whereas the appeal for the AY 2011-12 arising from the appellate order passed ... obliged." 1. 2. In para 7 of the petition, the assessee has mentioned several judicial pronouncements in support of allowing the request for condonation of delay. Considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause

Savta Maharaj Gramin Bigarsheti Sankari Pathsansth Maryadit, Borban Ghargaon vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2089/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2087&2089/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Vs Ito, Ward-2, Savta Maharaj Gramin Bigarsheti San Ahmednagar Kari Pathsanstha Maryadit, Borban Ghargaon, Ghargaon, Sangamner, Ahmednagar-422605 Maharashtra Pan-Aaeas8066K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

dated 20.03.2023 respectively. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 309 days in filing of the instant appeal. Application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit dated 2 04.09.2025 mentioning the reasons for the delay has been filed by the assessee. I have gone through the same ... Supreme Court) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382) hereby condone the delay of 309 days and admit both the appeals for adjudication. 3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed