← 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

Sanjeev Garg, Kurukshetra vs. Income Tax Officer, Kurukshetra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 871/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 871/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sanjeev Garg, The Ito, House No. 297, Sector 13, Vs Kurukshetra. U.E., Kurukshetra. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afspg0180L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Navneet Singal, Ca & Shri Rittun Sahuwala, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Singal, CA and Shri Rittun Sahuwala, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Registry has pointed out that appeal is time barred by 364 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. He has also filed his affidavit in support of the application. It has been pleaded in the application that assessee has not been keeping good health after Covid ... also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction

Nidhiben Mrugeshkumar Shah, Anand vs. The ACIT, (OSD), Ward-5, Anand

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

ITA 990/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Viranch Modi, CA
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

Assessing Officer or AO”), under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 32 days in filing the present appeal before us. The assessee has moved ... petition ITA No.990/Ahd/2025 2 for condonation of delay accompanied by a duly sworn affidavit explaining the reasons. In the petition, it has been stated that after receipt of the appellate order, the assessee had initially approached a local tax consultant at Anand, who assured that the appeal would be filed

Ashok Gurunath Patil, Latur vs. ITO Ward1(1), Latur

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

ITA 594/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.594/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Ashok Gurunath Patil, Ito, Ward 1(1), Latur A/P Masobavadi, Khed, Nilanga, Latur-413522 Vs. Maharashtra Pan-Bihpp0618K अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Shri Pratik Sandbhor Department By: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing: 24-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06-10-2025 आदीश/Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 21.08.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 27.02.2018. 2. Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 123 Days In Filing Of The Appeal. Application For Condonation Of Delay Alongwith Affidavit Has Been Filed & Placed At Page No. 24-26 Of The Appeal Citing The Main Reason For The Delay, That The Assessee Was Not Aware Of Passing Of The Impugned Order As 2 The Tax Consultant Registered The E-Mail Id Of His Younger Son & The E-Mail Account Was Not In Use. After Hearing The Ld. Departmental Representative (Dr) & Perusing The Records We Find That The Sufficient Cause Prevented The Assessee From Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit & The Delay Is Not Intentional. Therefore In The Larger Interest Of Justice & Also Placing Reliance On The Judgement Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Master Katiji & Others(1987) 167 Itr 471(Sc) (Supreme Court) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Dated 21.03.2025 (2025) Insc 382) We Hereby Condone The Delay Of 123 Days & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

dated 27.02.2018. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 123 days in filing of the appeal. Application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit has been filed and placed at Page No. 24-26 of the appeal citing the main reason for the delay, that the assessee ... Supreme Court) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382) we hereby condone the delay of 123 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts

SHI vs. Iddhi Education Society, Sataravs.CIT Exemption Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1786/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1774 & 1786/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: - Shivsiddhi Education Society, V The Cit Exemption, 10, S.No.272/A, Midc S. Pune. Chandan Nagar, Degaon, Satara – 415004. Pan: Aapts1266F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Rani C. Mutha Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde- Cit Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S.12A R.W.S 12Ab & 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Both Dated 20.09.2024Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat The Appeal In Ita

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1786/PUN/2025 are allowed. 16. To sum up, both appeals of the assessee are allowed. Condonation of Delay : 17. There was a delay of 237 days in filing appeal. Assessee filed Affidavit of trustee and copy of Medical certificates. We are convinced

SHI vs. Iddhi Education Society, Sataravs.CIT Exemption Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1774/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1774 & 1786/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: - Shivsiddhi Education Society, V The Cit Exemption, 10, S.No.272/A, Midc S. Pune. Chandan Nagar, Degaon, Satara – 415004. Pan: Aapts1266F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Rani C. Mutha Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde- Cit Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S.12A R.W.S 12Ab & 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Both Dated 20.09.2024Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat The Appeal In Ita

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1786/PUN/2025 are allowed. 16. To sum up, both appeals of the assessee are allowed. Condonation of Delay : 17. There was a delay of 237 days in filing appeal. Assessee filed Affidavit of trustee and copy of Medical certificates. We are convinced

The Nashik Jilha Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited, Nashik vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 1373/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar
Section 147Section 250

Registry has informed that there is delay of 27 days in preferring the instant appeals before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeals. 3. After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 27 days in filing the appeals before this Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee failed to appear before

The Nashik Jilha Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited, Nashik vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 1372/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar
Section 147Section 250

Registry has informed that there is delay of 27 days in preferring the instant appeals before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeals. 3. After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 27 days in filing the appeals before this Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee failed to appear before

DCIT., Central Circle 3(1), Hyderabad vs. United Developer, Hyderabad

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

ITA 453/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

Section 132Section 153C

Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income-Tax CO No.14 & 15/Hyd/2025 United Developer Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice-oriented and liberal approach

DCIT., Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. United Developer, Hyderabad

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

ITA 452/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

Section 132Section 153C

Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income-Tax CO No.14 & 15/Hyd/2025 United Developer Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice-oriented and liberal approach

Gayatri Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1110/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate For Revenue : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

very outset, there is a delay of 576 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed petition seeking for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that, the Company is under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [in short “CIRP”] which was commenced by the National Company Law Tribunal ... Kumar Naik, learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, did not dispute the contents explained by the assessee in it's petition for condonation of delay of 576 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, strongly opposed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal within the prescribed

Keeran Multibusiness Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -12(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4983/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 250Section 254(1)

appeal of the appellant, ex-parte, under the provisions of 249(3) of the Act and rejecting the appellant's request for condonation of delay without giving proper and effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2 That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred ... address should have been informed to the authorities. But the assessee had never submitted such information to the department. Therefore, the reasons for condonation of delay are not justifiable, the CIT(A) had thus rightly dismissed the appeal of assessee. According, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) should

Saranga Anil Aggarwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 4887/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

there is delay of 857 days in ITA No. 4887/Mum/2025 for AY 2017-18. The assessee/appellant has filed a detailed application seeking condonation of delay and has elaborated the causes of delay for making out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 7. We have heard ... examined the record. At the outset, Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee submitted an application for seeking condonation of delay alongwith detailed affidavit narrating the reasons for not filing the appeal before the due date and the contents of the affidavit are extracted below:- “1. The order u/s 250for

Saranga Anil Aggarwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 4867/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2012-13
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

there is delay of 857 days in ITA No. 4887/Mum/2025 for AY 2017-18. The assessee/appellant has filed a detailed application seeking condonation of delay and has elaborated the causes of delay for making out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 7. We have heard ... examined the record. At the outset, Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee submitted an application for seeking condonation of delay alongwith detailed affidavit narrating the reasons for not filing the appeal before the due date and the contents of the affidavit are extracted below:- “1. The order

Rajnish Wellness Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

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

ITA 3471/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Rajnish Wellness Limited, Income Tax Officer, 6Th Floor, Ward-5(3)(1), Navjivan Commercial, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008. Pan : Aahcr3491G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 25-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Which Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny To Verify The Genuineness Of The Large Scale Promotion Expenses. Notices U/S. 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟) Were Issued Calling For The Necessary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 37(1)

perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) without adjudicating upon the application so filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay has dismissed the appeal on account of non- prosecution. Further, there is no adjudication on the application seeking furnishing of the additional evidences under ... deem it appropriate to set aside to the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh including condonation of delay as well as application seeking admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A and the assessee is also provided one more opportunity, where the matter could

Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 20(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3373/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2020-21 Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Dcit, Circle-20(1), A/1901-1902, Piramal Chambers, Vardhman Heights, Vs. Dr.Ss Rao Marg, Tb Kadam Marg, Parel, Byculla (East), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400027. Pan : Aarpj1996K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Mr. Dipesh Ruparelia (Virtually Present) For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr. Dipesh RupareliaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 272A(1)Section 274Section 37(1)Section 57

pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21, wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “Grounds on rejection of application for condonation of delay: 1. Erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by rejecting the application for condonation of delay, without considering the merits of the appeal ... granting an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant before passing an ex-parte order; 4. Erred in not considering the application for condonation of delay filed by the Appellant as genuine and reasonable; 5. Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant is not a tax professional

M/S. Kushang Security and House Keeping Service Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2964/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 254(1)

submitted that the delay occurred was unintentional and circumstances beyond control of the assessee. After considering the petition of assessee for condonation of delay, it can be construed from the facts of the case that the assessee had not attended any hearing before the Ld. CIT(A), whereas

Bombay East Rotary Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2914/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Bombay East Rotary Income Tax Officer, Charitable Trust Ward 1(1), Sahakar Bhavan, Mumbai Kurla Industrial Estate Vs. L.B.S Marg, Ghatkopar, Mumbai - 400086 (Pan: Aaatb3999H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kulin V.Munim, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 80G

fresh registration application in Form 10A on 26.03.2025 for which the registration was received with effect from 02.04.2025. Assessee moved an application for condonation of delay in filing the application for fresh registration u/s.12A vide its letter dated 10.04.2025, submitted on 11.04.2025 in the Office of ld. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai ... Assessment Year 2027-28 which does not cover the year under consideration. For this, assessee has placed on record a petition for condonation of delay, treating its submission for renewal of the registration under the amended laws to be taken from Assessment Year 2022-23. 5. Before us, assessee

Neeraj Nath, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the manner indicated above

ITA 1519/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 57

Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. At the very threshold, the appeal is accompanied by a petition for condonation of delay. The delay involved is 459 days. In support thereof, the assessee has filed an affidavit affirming on oath that he had received the impugned appellate order on 21/09/2023. Unfortunately ... mala fide intent. Rather, there exists a reasonable and sufficient cause for the late filing. In the interest of substantial justice, we therefore condone the delay of 459 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. The assessee has assailed two additions sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals

Avisha Cedit Capital Limited, Connaught Place vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-28, Delhi, Jhandewalan

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

ITA 3384/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 153

dismissed the appeal treated as time barred. Ld. CIT (A) has observed that the assessee has failed to explain the sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 3. Aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT (A) the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. CIT, DR submitted that ... sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee for condone the delay in filling the appeal. He further stated that the appeal was rightly dismissed by the Ld. CIT{(A). 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. None is present for assessee

Kiran, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-43(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1495/DEL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69ASection 69C

short] dated 30.12.2024 for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. At the time of hearing, it is noticed that the assessee has filed the condonation of delay application, which is placed at page 10-11 of the paper book and it is mentioned in the said application that there ... condoned. Ld. DR has not expressed any serious objection to the same. 3. We have heard both the counsels on the issue of condonation of delay. In our considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing