← 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

Ningaiah Siddu, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)& Tps, Mysore

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

ITA 922/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 Ningaiah Siddu No.429, Shivarathreeswara Nagar Bannimantap Dcit B Extension Vs. Circle 1(1) & Tps Mysore 570 015 Mysore Pan No :Abcpn4752B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Tharun Kothari, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Sri Tharun Kothari, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69C

days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Further, the ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention to an application for condonation of delay filed along with an affidavit dated 26.06.2025 stating the cause for such delay, which are reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience: Ningaiah ... assessee, which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the specified period before this Tribunal, and accordingly, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income

M/S. Rukmani Finance Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 919/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2017-18 M/S. Rukmani Finance Pvt. Ltd. No.84, 5Th Floor, Manish Tower Ito J.C. Road Vs. Ward 5(1)(4) Bengaluru 560 002 Bengaluru Pan No : Aaacr9552P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri T. Srinivasa, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 31.05.2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053354784(1) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S. Rukmani Finance Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 2 Of 11

For Appellant: Sri T. Srinivasa, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 250Section 253(5)

days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Further, the ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention to an application for condonation of delay filed along with an affidavit dated 21/04/2025 stating the cause for such delay, which are reproduced below for ease of reference and record ... that the delay is unintentional and no benefit can be attributed to the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly. He thus prayed to condone the delay and requested to consider the issues raised by the assessee on merits. 5. On the contrary, the ld. D.R. vehemently objected for granting

Puttaraju Hemavathi, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 917/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16 Puttaraju Hemavathi 113, 1St Cros, 14Th Block Bda Layout Ito Nagarbhavi Vs. Ward 6(3)(1) Bengaluru 560 072 Bangalore Pan No : Amdph5733N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Gana, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 5.6.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1065398501(1) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Puttaraju Hemavathi, Bengaluru Page 2 Of 11 Puttaraju Hemavathi, Bengaluru Page 3 Of 11

For Appellant: Ms. Gana, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 144Section 148Section 250

days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Further, the ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention to an affidavit for condonation of delay dated 19/04/2025 along with a medical certificate issued by HIP&KNEE Clinic, Bangalore, stating the cause for such delay, which are reproduced below ... which prevented her from filing the appeal within the specified period before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, and accordingly, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 5. Now, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee

Sun Valley Food & Beverafges(P)Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 300/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Sun Valley Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. 7, Tank Road Ulsoor Ito Bangalore 560 042 Vs. Ward 6(1)(1) Karnataka Bangalore Pan No :Aalcs0921J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Department By : Sri Subramanian, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 4.11.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1070079635(1) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 14 Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 155BSection 250

delay of 18 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Further, the assessee has submitted an affidavit dated 21/02/2025 for condonation of delay stating the cause for such delay, which is reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience: Sun Valley Food and Beverages Pvt Ltd., Bangalore Page ... assessee company, which prevented him from filing the appeal within the specified period before this Tribunal, and accordingly, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal & admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that assessee company had not filed its return

Late Shri Mahabir Prasad(Legal Heir Ms. Parul Kansaria), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 412/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153D

taken as the lead appeals. 3. Appeal filed by the assessee is late by 39 days for which the assessee has requested for condonation of delay by filing condonation petition supported by an affidavit. In the application Assessee submits that assessment order under section 153C read with section 144 read ... also supporting the above facts. As delay is nominal, we do not find that there is any mala fide intention, accordingly, we condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing

Late Shri Mahabir Prasad(Legal Heir Ms. Parul Kansaria), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 411/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153D

taken as the lead appeals. 3. Appeal filed by the assessee is late by 39 days for which the assessee has requested for condonation of delay by filing condonation petition supported by an affidavit. In the application Assessee submits that assessment order under section 153C read with section 144 read ... also supporting the above facts. As delay is nominal, we do not find that there is any mala fide intention, accordingly, we condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing

Late Shri Mahabir Prasad(Legal Heir Ms. Parul Kansaria), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 410/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153D

taken as the lead appeals. 3. Appeal filed by the assessee is late by 39 days for which the assessee has requested for condonation of delay by filing condonation petition supported by an affidavit. In the application Assessee submits that assessment order under section 153C read with section 144 read ... also supporting the above facts. As delay is nominal, we do not find that there is any mala fide intention, accordingly, we condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Late Shri Mahabir Prasad (Legal Heir Ms. Parul Kansaria), Bengaluru

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

ITA 170/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153D

taken as the lead appeals. 3. Appeal filed by the assessee is late by 39 days for which the assessee has requested for condonation of delay by filing condonation petition supported by an affidavit. In the application Assessee submits that assessment order under section 153C read with section 144 read ... also supporting the above facts. As delay is nominal, we do not find that there is any mala fide intention, accordingly, we condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Baengaluru vs. Late Shri Mahabir Prasad(Legal Heir Ms. Parul Kansaria), Bengaluru

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

ITA 169/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153D

taken as the lead appeals. 3. Appeal filed by the assessee is late by 39 days for which the assessee has requested for condonation of delay by filing condonation petition supported by an affidavit. In the application Assessee submits that assessment order under section 153C read with section 144 read ... also supporting the above facts. As delay is nominal, we do not find that there is any mala fide intention, accordingly, we condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing

Maimoon Fashion Accessories Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5010/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaimoon Fashion Accessories Pvt. Ltd., 645, Maimoon House, Mohili Village, A.K. Road, J.B. Nagar S.O., Mumbai – 400059 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaccm3307P

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal KakuFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Kadam, Sr.DR
Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(ii)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 45

order was served only on 23.06.2025, and thereafter, the necessary steps were taken to file the present appeal. Accordingly, the assessee prays for condonation of delay on the basis that the same was neither deliberate nor due to negligence on the part of the assessee. 3. Having considered the submissions ... considered view that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal within the prescribed limitation period. Accordingly, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on the merits. 4. In this appeal, the Assessee has raised the following grounds: – “Ground No.1 Incorrect year

DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aegis Logistics Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for

ITA 4944/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Abdulkadir JawadwalaFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 14A

delay of six days in the filing of the present appeal. In this regard, reference was made to the application for condonation of delay filed by the Assessing Officer, wherein it has been explained that the delay occurred on account of, inter alia: (a) substantial time-barring assessment work pending ... Katiji [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], wherein it was held that a liberal approach is to be adopted in considering applications for condonation of delay, and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Guided by this principle, we are of the considered opinion that the explanation offered constitutes sufficient

Sika Properties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4817/MUM/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, Sr. A/R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153

common grievance read as under:- “1) The learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in law and on facts in erroneously disallowing the condonation of delay and dismissing the appeal as "in-limine, disregarding the constraint faced by your appellant in filing the appeal, in as much as, the assessment order appealed ... NFAC erred in law and on facts in not providing an opportunity of personal hearing before dismissing our appeal by disallowing condonation of Delay. 3) The learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in law and on facts in not dealing with the following Grounds of Appeal on merits, that clearly indicated

Sika Properties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4816/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, Sr. A/R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153

common grievance read as under:- “1) The learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in law and on facts in erroneously disallowing the condonation of delay and dismissing the appeal as "in-limine, disregarding the constraint faced by your appellant in filing the appeal, in as much as, the assessment order appealed ... NFAC erred in law and on facts in not providing an opportunity of personal hearing before dismissing our appeal by disallowing condonation of Delay. 3) The learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in law and on facts in not dealing with the following Grounds of Appeal on merits, that clearly indicated

Urmi Foundation, Thane vs. Wx, Thane

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

ITA 3340/MUM/2025[25-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Abhilasha Sanjay PawarFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

which the assessee has filed an application for condoning the said delay. On perusal of the same, we deem it fit to condone the delay Urmi Foundation for the reason that the assessee had ‘sufficient cause’ for the said delay. Delay condoned. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds ... decision of the Tribunal as well as the Hon’ble High Courts where a liberal view has been taken in case of condoning the delay in filing application for registration in form 10AB. We would place our reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

Jagdish Malhotra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-16(1), Jhandewalan

ITA 4546/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Shrikant Namdeo, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

support of delay in filing the appeal, the appellant has filed an application along with an affidavit affirmed by the appellant himself for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act for Assessment Year ... assessee in delay filing of the appeal and we also note that in the event the appeal is not admitted upon condonation of delay, the appellant would suffer irreparable loss and injury. Thus, Page 3 ITA No. 4546/Del/2025 S.A. No.429/Del/2025 Jagdish Malhotra (AY: 2012-13) having regard to the entire

Shivam Jewelmart Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2508/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandrashivam Jewelmart Private Vs Dcit Limited. 1094/1167, 3Rd Floor Central Circle-14 Kuchamahajani, New Delhi Ara Centre, Jhandewalan, Pan: Aaqcs3302Q Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Neeraj Mangla, Ca Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Delhi, 26 (‘Ld. Cit (A)’ For Short), Dated 20/08/2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 169 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Delay In Filing The Appeal

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

immediately preferred the present Appeal, which resulted in delay in filing the present Appeal and the same is not intentional. Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal. 2 Shivam Jewelmart (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 3. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there ... perused the material available on record on the issue of delay in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee in the Affidavit for condonation of delay contended that the delay in filing the Appeal contending that while filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) e-mail

Olivet Educational Society, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(4), Civic Centre

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2491/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandraolivet Educational Society Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-Block, Street No. 100, Exemption Ward 2(4) Civic Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi Centre, Minto Road, Pan: Aaato0547Q New Delhi

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

making the addition observed as under:- “The reply of the Assessee society has duly been considered but not found tenable as application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B is applied to the prescribed Authority i.e. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), and vide CBDT Circular No. 2/2020 dated ... Educational Society Vs. ITO 03/01/2020 for Assessment Year 2018-19 and subsequent years, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) is authorized to condone the delay, but the Assessee has not filed the same before Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption). Therefore, at this stage the delay in filing form

Narender Singh Makkar, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for

ITA 2484/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandranarender Singh Makkar Vs. Ito 131/18, Laxmi Garden Laxmi Ward-3(1) Garden, Gurugram Gurugram 122001 Pan: Ajupm8087A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms.Monalisa Maity, Adv Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.

Section 144Section 147

Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 107 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay contending that the Assessee was having certain family disputes and the Assessee was not living with the family members, therefore, due to the stress ... took substantial time to procure relevant documents and filing the 2 Narender Singh Makkar Vs. ITO Appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate

Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Meerut vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(4), Meerut

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2482/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandralokesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Ito H. No. 314, Banwari Vatika Ward-1(2)(4) Gupta Colony, Near Transprot Nagar Mart, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Avppk1128H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Bhimanshu Kansal, Adv Revenue By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Ld.

Section 144Section 69A

Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 869 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay contending that the Assessee was suffering under the depression due to expire of his wife and she left two minor children, out one child ... under the financial crises he was not in this position to pursue his case in any authorities. Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought

Alka Yadav, Gurgao vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1769/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1769/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Alka Yadav, Income Tax Officer, Ground Floor, C-06, Block C, Vs. Ward 1(1), South City 2, Sector-49, Gurgaon, Haryana. Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Abppy9248J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 250

natural justice.” ITANo.1769/Del/2025 2. This appeal is filed by the Assessee with a delay of 142 days and the assessee filed petition for condonation of delay explaining the delay in filing before the Tribunal. The assessee also filed an affidavit in support of the petition. The assessee explained the delay