← 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

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 1105/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

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 764/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.764/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Indian Medical Association V Dcit, Pune Branch, S Exemption Circle, Pune. 992, Dr.Nitu Mandke, Ima House, Tilak Road, Pune – 411002. Pan: Aaati2653M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 28.02.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 22.05.2021 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.764/PUN/2025 [A] “1] The learned CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 567 days in filing the appeal and thereby erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that ... before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 567 days. Ld.AR submitted that before the ld.CIT(A), Assessee had made elaborate submissions regarding condonation of delay. In the petition for condonation of delay, Assessee had specifically submitted that on identical grounds, disallowance had been made u/s.143

Abdulwahid Abdulkarim Qureshi, Sangamner vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ahmednagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2086/PUN/2025[2017 - 18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2086/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Vs Ito, Ward-2 Abdulwahid Abdulkarim Qureshi, Ahmednagar Bharatnagar, Sangamner, Ahmednagar-422605 Maharashtra Pan-Aaipq9677R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl
Section 250Section 271Section 271A

order passed u/s 271 dated 10.09.2022. 2. Registry has informed that the present appeal is time barred by 128 days. Application for condonation of delay has been filed. The main reason for the delay is that the assessee was undergoing medical treatment for Hypertension and Blood Pressure. Medical 2 certificate ... Doctor is enclosed. Considering the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay and also taking guidance from the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others(1987) 167 ITR 471(SC) (Supreme Court

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice ... aside the order of C.I.T. and restore the issue to his file for consideration of condonation of delay in granting registration, who shall adjudicate the issue afresh after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, ground No.6 stands allowed for statistical purposes.” 35. We find

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice ... aside the order of C.I.T. and restore the issue to his file for consideration of condonation of delay in granting registration, who shall adjudicate the issue afresh after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, ground No.6 stands allowed for statistical purposes.” 35. We find

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice ... aside the order of C.I.T. and restore the issue to his file for consideration of condonation of delay in granting registration, who shall adjudicate the issue afresh after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, ground No.6 stands allowed for statistical purposes.” 35. We find

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice ... aside the order of C.I.T. and restore the issue to his file for consideration of condonation of delay in granting registration, who shall adjudicate the issue afresh after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, ground No.6 stands allowed for statistical purposes.” 35. We find

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice ... aside the order of C.I.T. and restore the issue to his file for consideration of condonation of delay in granting registration, who shall adjudicate the issue afresh after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, ground No.6 stands allowed for statistical purposes.” 35. We find

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice ... aside the order of C.I.T. and restore the issue to his file for consideration of condonation of delay in granting registration, who shall adjudicate the issue afresh after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, ground No.6 stands allowed for statistical purposes.” 35. We find

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 852/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 852/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,….…Appellant Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Jupiter International Limited,…………….…Respondent Unnayanam, 20A, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kolkata-700019, West Bengal [Pan:Aaacj6956B] Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate & Shri K.K. Chhaparia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.N. Barnwal, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: September 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

days in filing the appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal. However, The Revenue did not file any condonation petition in support of condonation of delay. We are of the view that the Revenue was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, we are inclined to condone

Jas Equipments & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Durgapur vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 2, Durgapur

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

ITA 520/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 519 & 520/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Jas Equipments & Engineers Pvt. Limited,…Appellant S-12, Durgapur Industrial Estate, J.P. Avenue, Durgapur-713212, W.B. [Pan:Aabcj9126E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Circle-2, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-734101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: September 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147

assessee before the Tribunal. However, The Director of the assessee-company filed a condonation petition before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 1016 days mentioning that due to sudden unfortunate death of her husband, she was entrusted with the huge responsibility of handling the company’s matters ... appeal, due to that there was a delay of 1016 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, she pleaded to condone the delay in both the appeals. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing

Jas Equipments & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Durgapur vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 2, Durgapur

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

ITA 519/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 519 & 520/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Jas Equipments & Engineers Pvt. Limited,…Appellant S-12, Durgapur Industrial Estate, J.P. Avenue, Durgapur-713212, W.B. [Pan:Aabcj9126E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Circle-2, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-734101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: September 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147

assessee before the Tribunal. However, The Director of the assessee-company filed a condonation petition before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 1016 days mentioning that due to sudden unfortunate death of her husband, she was entrusted with the huge responsibility of handling the company’s matters ... appeal, due to that there was a delay of 1016 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, she pleaded to condone the delay in both the appeals. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing

Evolution Golf Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -6(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 754/MUM/2025[2010-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2010-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in not 2 ITA No.754/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2010-11 Evolution Golf Private Limited condoning a delay of 41 days in filing the appeal and consequently, not admitting the appeal. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances ... case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay of 41 days and admitted the appeal. 2. The CIT(A) erred in not deciding the following grounds of appeal on merits - "1. The Assessing officer had erred in addition on account of amount received from share

Hitesh Pawanraj Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD-19(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5322/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

assessment year 2010-11 also similar circumstances prevailed and this Tribunal vide order dated 23/09/2025 in assessee’s own case in ITA No.3745/Mum/2025 condoned the delay and remit the issue back to the file of the Ld.AO to decide the issue on merits. 3. On the contrary, the Ld.DR relied ... 5322/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2011-12 Hitesh Pawanraj Mehta 4. In the present facts, on examining whether the reason stated by the assessee to seek condonation of delay before this Tribunal are sufficient to condone the delay. Reliance is placed on following observations by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector

Lancer Foundation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 5028/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat GandhiFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

admittedly filed its application beyond the period of extension provided by the CBDT. But the Hon’ble parliament has provided the authority for condonation for delay in filing application beyond time to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. The relevant proviso introduced into Act below section ... Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he considers that there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the application, condone such delay and such application shall be deemed to have been filed within time.” 5.1 Since the assessee has expressed its willingness to move such an application before

Limrass Construction Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5002/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 41(1)Section 68

notice that there is delay of 864 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and assessee has filed an application for seeking condonation of delay alongwith affidavit and the same are extracted below:- “3. The Impugned CIT(A) Order was passed on 30-01-2023 The Appeal before Your ... before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of A.Y.2013-14, giving the reasons for delay in filing of an Appeal and Condonation of delay. 6. Your Appellant was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the Appeal on time, in view of the following genuine and bonafide circumstances, beyond

Binoy Rajen Shah, Mumbai vs. Circle 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4986/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. HifzurrahmanFor Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 250Section 68

case, the Ld. Commissioner by way of impugned order dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine for want of limitation by not condoning the delay of 222 days, filed against the assessment order dated 30.05.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act making the addition of Rs.48 ... mainly on the reason that the Assessee neither given any documentary evidence in support of the reason for condonation of delay nor filed an affidavit from the chartered accountant to substantiate the reason given. 3. We have given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances. We observe from form

Ramavtar Investment & Trading Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4866/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld. Commissioner, However, With A Delay Of Approximately 725 Days. The Assessee, Before The Ld. Commissioner By Filing Form No.35 Mentioned The Following Reason For Occurring Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal Before The Ld. Commissioner, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ramchandran, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shingate, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 246ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 69C

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2013-14. 2. Considering the reasons stated by the Assessee for condonation of delay of 7 days in filing of the instant appeal, which is otherwise minuscule, the same is condoned. 2 M/s. Ramavtar Investment Trading Company ... Order with your honors. The appellant hereby makes an application u/s 249(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961, requesting your honors to kindly condone the delay in fling the appeal against the order passed by the AO u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant prays that

Shri Bhagwandas Ramdasji Charitable and Religious Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO, Exemption-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid terms

ITA 4451/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kanta N D Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Bhagwandas Ito (Exemption)-2(3), Ramdasji Charitable & Mumbai Religious Trust, Ground Floor, Oricon House, 1076, Vs. Dr E Moses Road, Mumbai- 400 018 Pan: Aabts 4907 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

that CBDT had issued Circular No. 06/2020 dated 19/02/2020 to overcome the difficulties faced by the Assessees during Covid-19 period and to condone the delay u/sec. 119(2)(b) of the Act, has given power/authorized the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) to admit the applications for condonation of delay ... filing of the appeal, the Assessee is provided with an alternate remedy by the CBDT”, ultimately, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee, without condoning the delay. 6. The Assessee, being aggrieved, has preferred this appeal. As observed above, admittedly, the Assessee though had filed its return of income within

Mrs. Neha Urmish Udani, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes in the same terms

ITA 3503/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhat, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 250

Company but for the reasons explained hereinabove. 14)1 repeat and reiterate the statements and averments made in the accompanying application for condonation of delay 15) I say that whatever stated above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.” 4. On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative ... refuted the claim of the Assessee. 5. We have given thoughtful consideration to the reasons stated by the Assessee for condonation of delay to the effect that when the appeal was filed on 21/09/2012 before the Ld. Commissioner against the assessment order dated 22/08/2012, in Form No.35 there