← 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

Central Ordnance Depot, Pune vs. ITO TDS, Ward-1, Pune

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

ITA 1439/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, lower authorities erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal without appreciating the facts of the case. Your appellant prays for condonation of delay and granting an opportunity of hearing ... preferred appeal(s) before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a delay of about 2455. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in limine by not condoning the delay. Now the assessee is in appeal(s) before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

Mithun Babu Prasad Jaiswal, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 66/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.66/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Mithun Babu Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer Jaiswal, Hyderabad Ward 8(1) Pan:Ajvpb7975M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR
Section 144Section 226(3)

A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 110 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application/affidavit for condonation of delay. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee is an individual and deriving income from distribution of Parle Agro and Nourishco beverages ... rival contentions as well as the relevant material available on record. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the petition for condonation of delay as well as in the affidavit of the assessee. The contention of the assessee in the affidavit are reproduced as under: Page

Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 240/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Global University Foundation Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (Exemption) Ward-1 Pan:Aaicg0020F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Suvibha Nolka राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Sankar Pandi, P, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14/07/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y.2021-22. 2. There Is A Delay Of 506 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Supported By An Affidavit Of The Director Of The Assessee Foundation. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Was Not Served With The Impugned Order Dated 14/07/2023 Passed By The Learned Cit (A) & Therefore, Due To The Non-Communication Of The Impugned Order, The Assessee

For Appellant: CA Suvibha NolkaFor Respondent: : Shri Sankar Pandi, P, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 143(1)

A.Y.2021-22. 2. There is a delay of 506 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit of the Director of the assessee foundation. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee ... reasonable cause for an inordinate delay of 506 days in filing the appeal. Thus, the learned DR has vehemently opposed to the condonation of delay. 4. We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material available on record. The assessee has explained Page

Venkataramesh Babu Kaza, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1250/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri K. Abhiroop Bhargav, C.AFor Respondent: Shri TV Vamshidhar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 270A

Cognizance for Extension of Limitation reported in441 ITR 722. He has pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay despite the same was filing during in the Covid 19 pandemic period and extended by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Country in Suo Motu Cognizance ... while passing the impugned order. 10. We have heard the Ld. AR as well as the Ld. DR on the condonation of delay and also perused the contents of the Affidavit filed by the assessee ITA Nos.1250 & 1251/Hyd/2025 10 before the Ld. CIT(A) giving the reason of health issues

Venkata Subba Reddy Vennapusa, Kadapa vs. ITO, Ward-1, Cuddapah

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

ITA 1022/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1022/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Venkata Subba Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Vennapusa, Kadapa Ward 1 Pan:Aqcpv2508C Kadapa (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR
Section 147Section 148

order and submitted that the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation for want of an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal belatedly. However, the assessee has duly filed an application for condonation of delay which is placed at page No.50 ... Venkata Subba Reddy Vennapusa intentional. The petitioner, therefore, prays the learned CIT (A) to kindly condone the delay and pass appropriate orders in the matter.” 6. Thus, the assessee in the statement of facts has also explained the reasons for the delay of 54 days in filing of the appeal

Vishanthi Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-4, Chennai

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

ITA 1956/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1956/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vishanthi Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No. 32, Old No. 8, Manna Reddy Exemption Ward 4, Street, T. Nagar 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Aaatv3798A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 9 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Condoning

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT
Section 11(2)Section 143(3)

filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 35 days in filing the appeal. The assessee also sought for condonation of delay in Form 35. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that there is no sufficient cause for the delay ... stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Accordingly, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing the appeal and adjudicate the issue on merits in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to file explanations with documentary

Couppammal, Pondicherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

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

ITA 1939/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1939/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Couppammal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 50, Nainiappa Pillai Street, Ward 3, Chinnakadai, Pondicherry 605 001. Puducherry. [Pan:Adapc8638D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Murali, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 69 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT
Section 69A

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 69 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we 2 I.T.A. No.1939/Chny/25 find the reasons stated

Natarajan Murugan, Tuticorin vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tuticorin

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

ITA 1935/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1935/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Natarajan Murugan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 14/14/4 K.T.C. Nagar, Melur, Ward 1(2), Tuticorin S.O. Ettayapuram Road, Tuticorin. Tuticorin 628 002. [Pan:Aogpm4428L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Thulasiram, Avocate & Shri S. Kumarasubramanian, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 7 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons.

For Appellant: Shri R. Thulasiram, Avocate &For Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT
Section 147

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 7 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. 2 I.T.A. No.1935/Chny/25 Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated

S.G. Srinivasan, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 1926/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahays.G. Srinivasan, I.T.O., No. 15, Venkatramana Vs. Ward-1, Vellore Bhagavathar Street, Walajapet, No. 2, Barracks Cross Street, Vellore-632513. Officers Line, Vellore, Tamil Pan No. Belps 3581 L Nadu-632001. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

that there is delay of 219 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal for which, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in the form of affidavit mentioning the fact as under: 2 ITA1926/Chny/2025 S.G. Srinivasan Vs ITO  The appellant was under continuous medical treatment from ... delay is not condoned and the appeal decided on merits, the petitioner would be put to considerable hardship and injury. The condonation of delay and disposal of the appeal on merits would give an opportunity to the assessee to address the issue on merits and cancel the addition, which otherwise

Annamalai Palaniappan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1918/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayannamalai Palaniappan, D.C.I.T., 35, Orur Olcott Road, 5Th Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), Avenue, Besant Nagar S.O., Chennai. Besant Nagar, Chennai-600090 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Aahpp 0725 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 270A

there is a delay of 216 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal for which, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in the form of affidavit mentioning the fact as under:  The Petitioner submits that the Assessing officer has passed an order under section143 ... appeal is heard on merits.  In view of the above, the petitioner humbly prays that your Honours may be pleased to condone the delay and allow the appeal to be adjudicated on its merits. 3. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue on the application of condonation

Star Tex, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tirupur

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 1914/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaystar Tex, I.T.O., Represented By The Wife & L/R Vs. Ward 1(2), Of One Of The Partners, Tirupur. No. 9, Poonthottam Murungapalayam Gandhi Nagar Post, Opp Saran Theatre, Tirupur-641603 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Acxfs 8740 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 147Section 69A

that there is delay of 154 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal for which, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in the form of affidavit mentioning the fact that the partner of the assessee firm had passed away and the legal representative and wife ... good case on merit and is likely to succeed, if one more opportunity is provided to the assessee. The assessee prayed to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue on the application of condonation of delay, submitted

Ramasamy Dhandapani, Palani vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dindigul

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 1912/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayramasamy Dhandapani, I.T.O., 39, Vepan Valasu Periya Thottam, Vs. Ward-1, Poolampatty (P.O.), Palani Taluk, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu-624613 Pan No. Bhnpd 5800 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 194C

that there is delay of 34 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal for which, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with affidavit mentioning the fact that the assessee had not received any alert with regard to the notices issued for hearing uploaded ... more opportunity is provided to the assessee. 3. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue on the application of condonation of delay, submitted that the Bench may take appropriate view as per law. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. On the issue of condonation of delay

S 1286 R Pudupalayam Paccs, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 1906/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahays 1286 R Pudupalayam Primary I.T.O., Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society, Vs. Ward 1(1), Namakkal Dt., R Pudupalayam Namakkal. Po, Rasipuram Tk., Namakkal District-637408 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Aafas 8931 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

that there is delay of 369 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal for which, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay mentioning therein the fact that the assessee was totally unaware of the hearing posted before the CIT(A), NFAC as the portal ... good case on merit and is likely to succeed, if one more opportunity is provided to the assessee. The assessee prayed to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue on the application of condonation of delay, submitted

Mls Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Trichy vs. ITO, Circle-1 TDS, Chennai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 1903/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaymls Enterprises Private Limited, I.T.O., No. C-17, 3Rd Cross N.E.E. Vs. Circle-1, Tds, Thillainagar Trichy-620018 Chennai. (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Aaicm 2477 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 200ASection 234E

that there is delay of 642 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal for which, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with affidavit mentioning the fact that no communication whatsoever regarding the dismissal of the appeal by the ld. CIT(A) was received either ... good case on merit and is likely to succeed, if one more opportunity is provided to the assessee. The assessee prayed to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue on the application of condonation of delay, submitted

Mr. Santhosh Kumar Ponnusamy, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-3(1), Coimbatore

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the

ITA 1894/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysanthosh Kumar Ponnusamy, I.T.O., Sree Vari Roadways, 64/1-C1, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 3(1), L&T Bye Pass Road, Opp Sakthi Race Course Road, Engineering College, Kulathur, Coimbatore-641018. Venkitapuram Post, Coimbatore-641062. Pan No. Fyrps 8460 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

that there is delay of 124 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal for which, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in the form of affidavit mentioning the fact that on 26/06/2025, the assessee received a phone call from the jurisdictional Income Tax Officer regarding ... good case on merit and is likely to succeed, if one more opportunity is provided to the assessee. The assessee prayed to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue on the application of condonation of delay, submitted

Chakrapani Nagarajan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(3), Chennai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 1893/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaychakrapani Nagarajan, I.T.O., No. 45, Duraiswamy Garden, 1St Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 19(3), Floor, Saidapet, Aayakar Bhawan-Annexe Chennai-600015 (Tamil Nadu) Building, No. 121, M.G. Road, Pan No. Aacapn 3674 M Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034 (Tamil Nadu) Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 44A

that there is delay of 63 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal for which, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in the form of affidavit mentioning the fact that the due to ill health of son of the assessee and other personal problems ... more opportunity is provided to the assessee. 3. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue on the application of condonation of delay, submitted that the Bench may take appropriate view as per law. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. On the issue of condonation of delay

Atturampalayam Venkatachalam Krishnakumar, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruchengode

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 1890/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayatturampalayam Venkatachalam I.T.O., Krishna Kumar, Vs. Ward-1, D. No. 8/29, Athurampalayam, Morur Tiruchengode. Post, Tiruchengode, Namakkal, Tamilnadu-637211. Pan No. Awipk 1950 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 270A

deciding the issue on merit. 4. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue on the application of condonation of delay, submitted that the Bench may take appropriate view as per 3 ITA1890/Chny/2025 Atturampalayam Venkatachalam Krishna Kumar Vs ITO law. On merit, the ld. Sr.DR submitted that ... therefore, the assessee does not deserve any leniency at this stage. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. On the issue of condonation of delay, we find that the delay was not deliberate and occurred due to lack of proper guidance as mentioned in the affidavit. Thus, we condone

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circl 1, Coimbatore vs. Tiruchangodu Sengodagounder Ramasamy Khannaiyann, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1383/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1382 & 1383/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Tiruchangodu Sengodagounder Income Tax, Ramasamy Khannaiyan, Central Circle 1, 67, Avarampalaym Road, K.R. Puram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore 641 006. [Pan:Afzpk7832C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 26.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 13 Days. The Acit Central Circle 1, Coimbatore Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate

find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 13 days. The ACIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination 2 I.T.A. Nos.1382 & 1383/Chny/25 of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Tiruchangodu Sengodagounder Ramasamy Khannaiyan, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1382/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1382 & 1383/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Tiruchangodu Sengodagounder Income Tax, Ramasamy Khannaiyan, Central Circle 1, 67, Avarampalaym Road, K.R. Puram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore 641 006. [Pan:Afzpk7832C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 26.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 13 Days. The Acit Central Circle 1, Coimbatore Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate

find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 13 days. The ACIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination 2 I.T.A. Nos.1382 & 1383/Chny/25 of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated

Shanmugasundaram Venkatachalapathy, Tirunelveli, Tamilnadu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Tirunelveli

In the result, grounds of appeal raised

ITA 2056/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Shanmugasundaram I.T.O., Venkatachalapathy, Vs. Ward-4, C/O-Durv & Associates Llp, No. Tirunelveli. 10/80, Avm Avenue 3Rd Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai-600092 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Acapv 3414 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

delay of 209 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal for which, the assessee has filed an application for the condonation of delay by mentioning the facts as under: “In this regard, I submit before your Honours that I am a medical practitioner based out of Ambasamudram, a semi ... have attached an affidavit as a part of the appeal documents itself. Given the above reasons, I hereby pray to your Honours to condone the delay and admit the subject appeal.” 4. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR submitted that the Bench may take an appropriate view