← 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

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

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

ITA 2087/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

Sidhhivinayak Gramin Sahkari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1536/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1536/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Vs Ito, Ward-1(4) Sidhhivinayak Gramin Sahkari Pat Sanstha Kolhapur Maryadit, A/P Kodoli Panhala, Kolhapur-416231 Maharashtra Pan-Aaeas6278B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

passed u/s 144 dated 09.12.2019. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 111 days. After going through the application for condonation of delay and also considering the submissions of Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), 2 I find that the delay has arised on account of lack of response ... Supreme Court) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382), I hereby condone the delay of 111 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. When the case called for none appeared on behalf of the assessee. With the assistance

Jainam Group Chhindwara, Chhindwara vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi

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

ITA 83/JAB/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 68

observe that the assessee has made certain submissions to the ld. CIT(A), which have not been considered by rejecting the application for condonation of delay. After considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji

Gyan Vikas Samiti, Ambedkar Nagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ambedkar Nagar

In the result, the impugned orders of the Ld

ITA 8/ALLD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: (Application)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 249(4)Section 253(3)

have been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay, supported by affidavit. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. Being satisfied with ... reasons stated in application seeking condonation of delay in filing of these appeals; we condone the delay in filing of these appeals and admit the appeals for decision on merits. (B) We first take up appeal vide ITA. No.7/ALLD/2025. In this case, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assesse

Gyan Vikas Samiti, Ambedkar Nagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ambedkar Nagar

In the result, the impugned orders of the Ld

ITA 7/ALLD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: (Application)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 249(4)Section 253(3)

have been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay, supported by affidavit. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. Being satisfied with ... reasons stated in application seeking condonation of delay in filing of these appeals; we condone the delay in filing of these appeals and admit the appeals for decision on merits. (B) We first take up appeal vide ITA. No.7/ALLD/2025. In this case, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assesse

Baleshwar Nath Educational Society, Bhadohi vs. Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

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

ITA 63/ALLD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 253(3)

been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal ... hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay in filing of this appeal

Jiyauddin Khan, Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO 1(4), Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 139/ALLD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Jiyauddin Khan V. Ito-1(4) Bhitauli Bazar, Maharjganj, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharajganj-273302. Maharajganj, Maharajganj-273301. Pan:Bafpk3621P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 249(2)Section 69A

principles of natural justice.” 2. The appeal is barred by limitation by 117 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue ... assessee’s appeal was dismissed by learned CIT(A) on grounds of limitation. The assessee had requested for Page 3 of 8 condonation of delay however, the request of the assessee for condonation of delay was not considered favourably by the learned CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeal

Shervani Sugar Syndicate Limited, Ghaziabad vs. Dc/ACIT-2, Allahabad

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

ITA 138/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. National Faceless Limited Assessment Centre 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad- Delhi. 201001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. Dc/Acit-2, Allahabad Limited Office Of The Assistant C/O 17, Navyug Market, Commissioner Of Income Ghaziabad-201001. Tax, Allahabad, Allahabad-211001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Madhav Kapur Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Madhav KapurFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 253(3)

have been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay, supported by affidavit. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. Being satisfied with ... reasons stated in application seeking condonation of delay in filing of these appeals; we condone the ITA No.137 & 138/ALLD/2025 Page 3 of 6 delay in filing of these appeals and admit the appeals for decision on merits. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case

Shervani Sugar Syndicate Limited, C/O B. K. Kapur Co vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 137/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. National Faceless Limited Assessment Centre 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad- Delhi. 201001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. Dc/Acit-2, Allahabad Limited Office Of The Assistant C/O 17, Navyug Market, Commissioner Of Income Ghaziabad-201001. Tax, Allahabad, Allahabad-211001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Madhav Kapur Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Madhav KapurFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 253(3)

have been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay, supported by affidavit. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. Being satisfied with ... reasons stated in application seeking condonation of delay in filing of these appeals; we condone the ITA No.137 & 138/ALLD/2025 Page 3 of 6 delay in filing of these appeals and admit the appeals for decision on merits. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case

Jaybheri Enterprises, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 410/VIZ/2025[2012-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Sept 2025AY 2012-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.410/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22) Jaybheri Enterprises, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaofj1639A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Mn. Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 30/09/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 11/12/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN. Murthy Naik
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

delay supported with a medical certificate and an “affidavit”, dated 14/07/2025. 8. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative objected to the seeking of condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee firm. 6 Jaybheri Enterprises vs. ITO 9. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives ... Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which 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 7 Jaybheri Enterprises vs. ITO and liberal approach

Gandem Nageswara Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anakapalle

ITA 304/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In respect of belated filing of the appeal, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay wherein it is mentioned that as the assessee suffered from severe back pain due to disc prolapse during the relevant period and was advised

Madhya Pradesh Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Bhopal vs. ITO 2(3), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 930/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimadhya Pradesh Urja Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Vikas Nigam Ltd, 2(3), Vs. 1 Urja Bhawan, Bhopal Link Road Nos.2, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aabcm1097M) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 253

However the Appellant filed appeal on 13.06.2016 i.e. there is delay of 64 days in filing appeal. The Appellant has not applied for condonation of delay. b) As per section 249(2) of the I.T. Act, the assessee shall present its appeal within 30 days of service of notice ... within the time period prescribed u/s 249(2) of the Act. In the present case, the appellant has not made any request for condonation of delay in filing of the Appeal. I find that there is no good and sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of appeal

Sanjana Clothings Private Limited, Indore vs. Aid, CPC Bengaluru, Bengaluru

ITA 841/IND/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

attention was invited to pages 8 to 14 of paper book filed by virtue of which CBDT for the purpose of condonation of delay in filing the Form No.10IC the fulfillment of the following conditions were laid down:- (i) The Return of Income for the relevant assessment year has been ... date specified u/s 139(1) of the Act; (ii) The assessee has opted for taxation u/s 115BAA of the Act in case of condonation of delay is for Form No.10IC and u/s 115BAA of the Act in case of delay is for Form No.10ID in "filing status” in part

Hare Ram Mandir Trust, Bhopal vs. ITO -Exemption, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 770/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253

interalia contended that there is a delay of 47 days in filing the instant second appeal and that in this regard a condonation of delay application is placed on record. That the “impugned order” is dated 03.07.2024 and that on that date the assessee had not received the “impugned order ... which came to their notice as aforesaid. An affidavit in support [Serial No.15637/25] dated 23.09.2025 is placed on record in support of the condonation of delay application of one Shri Sitaram Thakur aged 76 years who is the Secretary of the assessee trust wherein it is affirmed and declared that

Hare Ram Mandir Trust, Bhopal vs. ITO-Exemption, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 769/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253

interalia contended that there is a delay of 47 days in filing the instant second appeal and that in this regard a condonation of delay application is placed on record. That the “impugned order” is dated 03.07.2024 and that on that date the assessee had not received the “impugned order ... which came to their notice as aforesaid. An affidavit in support [Serial No.15637/25] dated 23.09.2025 is placed on record in support of the condonation of delay application of one Shri Sitaram Thakur aged 76 years who is the Secretary of the assessee trust wherein it is affirmed and declared that

Radheshyam, Village Sevda, Ashta vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 666/IND/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiradheyshyam, Cit (A), बनाम/ Village Sevda, Nfac Vs. Ashta, Delhi Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Cezpr5392R) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 251Section 253Section 68

appeal before this Tribunal and in this regard we find an application seeking Page 4 of 9 Radheyshyam ITA No.666/Ind/2024 - A.Y. 2008-09 condonation of delay filed on record of this tribunal. It is averred therein that the assessee is an illiterate individual living in a remote village ... give his say to which he stated that the revenue has no objection if the delay is condoned. We therefore basis aforesaid condone the delay and admit the appeal. Page 5 of 9 Radheyshyam ITA No.666/Ind/2024 - A.Y. 2008-09 3.2 Thereafter we have carefully perused the written submission placed

Nalini Foundation, Malviya Nagar Jaipur vs. Exemption Ward 1, Jaipur, Kailash Height Lal Khothi Tonk Road

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

ITA 45/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

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

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

before ITAT,Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for which the Secretary of the Foundation Shri Prabhat Mathur filed an application dated 25-07-2025 for condonation of delay with following prayer. ‘’Our application has been delayed by 17 days beyond the prescribed period. The delay was purely unintentional and occurred ... delay be condoned in the interest of justice. In the light of the above, we most humbly pray that your Honours may kindly condone the delay 17 days in filing the appeal and admit our for adjudication on merits’’ 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that

Kailash Chand Meena, Alwar vs. ITO Ward2(3), Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

filed an application submitting therein the reasons for delay in filing the appeal and prayed for 3 Sh. Kailash Chand Meena, Alwar. condonation of delay. In support of the application, the assessee has also filed an Affidavit duly sworn in before the Notary, Jaipur dated 24th January, 2025 for condonation ... having the knowledge of orders earlier. 5. That thereafter my other counsel at Jaipur has stated to file the appeal with the condonation of delay being the sufficient cause and there is a strong case in our favour, thereafter he has started to prepare the appeal and the appeal

Central Methodist Church, Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 105/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, CIT DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 250

Because the CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the assessee overlooking the issue of condonation of delay caused in filing Form No. 10B, such delay being condonable as per section 119(2)(b), petition for which is pending adjudication before ... Income Tax Act, whereas the assessee had duly filed the Form No. 10B on 7.11.2022. It was pointed out that a petition for condonation of delay had been submitted before the ld. CIT (Exemption) on 16.07.2024, a copy of which was attached, the same was pending for adjudication

Late Ashvinbhai Umedbhai Patel (Deceased) by Legal Heir Smit Ashvinbhai Patel, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

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

ITA 1106/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12
Section 271(1)Section 271CSection 69Section 69A

appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing. Application for condonation of delay 3. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 536 days in filing of the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application ... condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. It has been explained that the assessee, Shri Ashwinbhai Umedbhai Patel, had expired on 03.08.2013, much before initiation of the present proceedings, and therefore the notices issued by the Department could not be attended. It is further