“condonation of delay”

Wassimuddin Kazi, Bhilai vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.537/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Wasimuddin Kazi Ews 410, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai-490 023 (C.G.) Pan: Bmdpk4223K

before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. 3. The Ld. Sr. DR fairly conceded to the contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel regarding the condonation of delay. 4. Having heard the parties herein, I am of the considered view that the reasons for delay cannot be attributed to any malafide ... Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, I condone the delay of 107 days involved in the captioned appeal. 5. Coming to the merits of the matter, it is noted that as per Para

Itishree Mohanty, Athagarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assesee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.435/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020) Itishree Mohanty Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack At:-Salijanga, Badanaupat, Athagarh, Cuttack, 754030 Pan No. : Eaqpm 1167 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/09/2025

appeal of the assessee is barred by 133 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay

Gurukula Foundation, Khurda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Bhubaneswar

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.432/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Gurukula Foundation Vs Ito, Exemption Ward, At:- Chhatabara, P.O/P.S:- Bhubaneswar Jamujhari, Khurda 752054 Pan No. : Aabtg 1538 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Order Dated 13/03/2025 Passed In Appeal No. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-3/10155/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. At The Outset, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 68 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Ld.Cit-Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, The Delay Of 68 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing.

appeal of the assessee is barred by 68 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.CIT-DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay

Sri Ashok Kumar Dwari, Jamunadeipur, Baripada vs. ITO, Ward-1, Baripada

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

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

appeals of the assessee is barred by 112 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay

Sri Ashok Kumar Dwari, Jamunadeipur, Baripada vs. ITO, Ward-1, Baripada

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

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

appeals of the assessee is barred by 112 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay

Pahanawa Associates Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assesee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No. 360/Ctk/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Pahanawa Associates Priivate Vs Ito, Bhubaneswar Limited, Flat No-606,Vishnu Block,Balaji Complex Housing Society, Jharpada,Bhubaneswar-751006 Pan No. : Aaecp 8304 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Dated 27/02/2025 In Appeal No.Nfac/2013-14/10072355 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. There Is A Delay Of 49 Days, For Which The Assesee Has Filed Condonation Of Delay Petition. The Revenue Has Not Disputed The Delay & Condonation. The Reasons Given By The Assesee Are Found To Be Plausible, Consequently, The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Is Condoned. 3. A Perusal Of The Facts As Also The Submissions Of The Ld. Sr. Dr Shows That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Exparte In Sofaras The Assesee Has Not Represented Before The Ld.Cit(A). This Being So, In The Interest Of The Justice The Issues In This Appeal Are Restored To The File Of The Ld.

Appeal No.NFAC/2013-14/10072355 for assessment year 2014-15. 2. There is a delay of 49 days, for which the assesee has filed condonation of delay petition. The revenue has not disputed the delay and condonation. The reasons given by the assesee are found to be plausible, Consequently, the delay

Motilal Agarwal, Sambalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sambalpur

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

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.170/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 1998-1999) Motilal Agarwal, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Sambalpur Badabazar, Sambalpur768004 Pan No. : Abrpa 6815 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mark Wright, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/09/2025

appeal of the assessee is barred by 1861 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the present appeal, which are plausible and not found to be false. Accordingly, the delay

Sane Guruji Manav Sewa Sangh, Amravati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Nagpur

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrysane Guruji Manav Sewa Acit (Exemption), Sangh, C/O Shri Sant Achyut Nagpur. Maharaj Heart Hospital & Vs. Research Institute, Mardi Road, At Post Masod, Amravati. Pan: Aaets 2041 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

observed that there is a delay of 23 days in filing the instant appeal, on which Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with duly sworn affidavit dated 21/05/2025. Considering the reasons stated by the Assessee for condonation of delay, as bonafide, genuine and unintentional, delay

Shaik Saida, Nuzvid vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below: 3 ITA No. 336, 337 and 338/Viz/2025 Shaik Saida vs. ITO Petition for Condonation of Delay: 1. Assessee was served with CIT(A) order on dt. 22.11.2024, passed u/s 250 of the IT Act. Whereas, the assessee being aggrieved ... medical treatment, the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal for the AYs 2015-16 within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 116 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that

Bandaru Padmaja, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Tribunal. In Respect Of The Belated Filing Of The Appeal, The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Relevant Contents Are Scanned & Pasted Herein Below:

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In respect of the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit and the relevant contents are scanned and pasted herein below: 3 Bandaru Padmaja vs. ITO 3. Considering the above reasons ... there is a sufficient and reasonable cause that prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 208 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual

Divyasri Realters, Hyderabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: The Tribunal. In Respect Of Belated Filing Of The Appeal, The Ld. Authorized Representative Drew Our Attention To The Paper Book Pages No. 42 & 43 Wherein The Assessee Has Filed A Notarized Affidavit Explaining The Reasons That Were Prevented The Assessee In Filing The Appeal Within The Stipulated Time. He Therefore Pleaded That Since There Is A Reasonable & Sufficient Cause In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal Beyond The Prescribed Time Limit, The Delay Of 366 Days May Be Condoned & The Appeal May Be Admitted For Adjudication On Merits.

admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. On the other hand, Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) strongly objected the Ld. AR’s plea for condonation of delay and submitted that the reasons advanced by the assessee in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit do not constitute ‘reasonable and sufficient ... pasted herein below for reference: 4 Divyasri Realtors vs. Pr. CIT 5. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay wherein the assessee has explained the reasons for such delay, we are of the considered opinion, the reasons advanced by the assessee do not constitute

Shree Shantanu Vidhyapeeth Society, Indore, M.P vs. The Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

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

submitted that the assessee has not revised return of income for A.Y. 2018-19, it is pertinent to mention here that power of condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) does not vest with the AO but with the Commissioner of Income Tax. Hence, plea for accepting the revised computation ... accordingly there is a delay of 368 days. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by two solemnised affidavits on stamp, one dated 22.08.2024 and other dated 30.07.2025. Both of these affidavits are deposed by Shri Abhishek Upadhyay/Secretary of assessee