← 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

Arp Securities Limited, Indore vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 150/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68

delay of 324 days in preferring the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and in this regard the assessee has made a condonation of delay application praying for the condonation of delay as the delay was not intentional. The Ld. AR in the application for condonation has taken a plea ... legal provisions and time limitation” for filing the instant appeal. Hence cause of delay is inadvertent. The Ld. AR in support of the condonation of delay application has placed reliance on Director of assessee company’s affidavit dated 20.01.2025 wherein it is averred that the date of the “impugned order

Global Logistics Services, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-4(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 840/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. A. K. Jain, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl
Section 144Section 148Section 194CSection 250

That on the facts and under the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) is wrong and unjustified in not condoning the delay of appeal filed by assessee. 3. Appellant crave leaves to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before ... verification. 2. That on the facts and under the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) is wrong and unjustified in not condoning the delay of appeal filed by assessee. 3. Appellant crave leaves to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of appeal

Jaswinder Singh, Ferozepur Cantt vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Ludhiana

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

ITA 587/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)

days for which the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a condonation application, relevant contents of which read as under: Subject: -Condonation of Delay in filing of Appeal in the case Sh. Jaswinder Singh Prop. Mis Khullar Automobiles, Ferozepur Cantt for the Assessment Year 2019-2020. Your Honour, With respect ... submissions in the Grounds of Appeal Raised in the Form-35 (Appeal with CIT(A). In lieu of this, you are requested to condone the delay and admit the Appeal for hearing on merits in the interest of natural justice. 3. Ld. DR opposed the condonation of delay. 4. After

Shree Narayan Cultural Mission, Vadodara vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahemdabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 667/AHD/2025[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2025
Section 80GSection 80G(5)

note that there is a delay of 29 days in filing of present appeal before us. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay, along-with an Affidavit. We are hereby inclined to condone the delay on account of smallness of the period of delay in filing of present

Rajnibhai Bhogilal Desai, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-5, Nadiad

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

ITA 533/AHD/2025[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

merits. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Condonation of delay: 6. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 376 days in filing of the present appeal before us. In this regard ... that the reasons given by the assessee constitute a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 376 days in the interest of substantial justice, and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. On Merits: I.T.A No. 533/Ahd/2025

Bharatbhai Raghavbhai Jograna, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1345/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 270ASection 69A

merits. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Condonation of delay 6. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 85 days in filing of the present appeal before us against the order ... view, the assessee has shown reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we hereby condone the delay of 85 days in filing of the present appeal and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication on merits. On Merits: 8. Before

Krishna Nrsing Home, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 5, Panvel

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

ITA 768/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

this Hon'ble Tribunal. 12. I am filing this affidavit to place the true and correct facts on record and to seek condonation of delay in the interest of justice. 3. After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the Affidavit, I am satisfied that ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 631 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one other

Dr. Pratap Pandhiranath Patil, Pune vs. PCIT - 2, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 1026/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Iyer and Shri Siddhant G. BiswasFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

informed that there is delay of 23 days in preferring the instant appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeal. The contents of the said application reads as under : 2 Dr. Pratap Pandharinath ... Additionally, I was out of town during the critical period, which further delayed the filing. I kindly request the Hon'ble Tribunal to condone this delay and allow my appeal to be heard on its merits. The delay was unintentional, and I assure you that I have made every effort

Mathikumar Educational Trust, Sivagangai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 2000/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2000/Chny/2025

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A

Ld.AR has placed on record, a copy of application filed before the Competent Authority u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act seeking condonation of delay in filing Form No.10AB. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee had provided the requisite details pursuant to the notice issued from the office ... Form 10AB may be restored to the files of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication of the matter, since assessee’s application for condonation of delay u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act is also pending consideration. 6. The Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(E). 7. We have heard

Jamal Mohideen Haroon Imran Khan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1964/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1962, 1963 & 1964/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jamal Mohideen Haroon Imran Khan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15/7, Vijayaragava Road First Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(2) T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Aaopi4540B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Raghav Menon, Advocate & : Shri Gautam Venkatanarayanan, 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 : 23.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Different Orders Dated 06.03.2025, 27.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Respectively.

For Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT
Section 147Section 154Section 270A

short]. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 72 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 find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which ... find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 72 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, 4 I.T.A. No.1962 to 1964/Chny/25 we find the reasons stated by the assessee

Jamal Mohideen Haroon Imran Khan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1963/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1962, 1963 & 1964/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jamal Mohideen Haroon Imran Khan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15/7, Vijayaragava Road First Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(2) T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Aaopi4540B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Raghav Menon, Advocate & : Shri Gautam Venkatanarayanan, 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 : 23.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Different Orders Dated 06.03.2025, 27.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Respectively.

For Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT
Section 147Section 154Section 270A

short]. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 72 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 find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which ... find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 72 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, 4 I.T.A. No.1962 to 1964/Chny/25 we find the reasons stated by the assessee

Jamal Mohideen Haroon Imran Khan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1962/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1962, 1963 & 1964/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jamal Mohideen Haroon Imran Khan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15/7, Vijayaragava Road First Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(2) T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Aaopi4540B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Raghav Menon, Advocate & : Shri Gautam Venkatanarayanan, 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 : 23.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Different Orders Dated 06.03.2025, 27.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Respectively.

For Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT
Section 147Section 154Section 270A

short]. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 72 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 find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which ... find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 72 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, 4 I.T.A. No.1962 to 1964/Chny/25 we find the reasons stated by the assessee

Meenakshi Traders, Chennai vs. ITO Ncw 22(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1957/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1957/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Meenakshi Traders, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6, Second Main Road, New Colony, Non Corporate Ward 22(1) Chrompet, Chennai 600 044. Tambaram. [Pan:Abdfm9151E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms.T.V. Muthu Abhiramani, 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 : 23.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.03.2025 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 40 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Ms.T.V. Muthu Abhiramani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 40 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, 2 I.T.A. No.1957/Chny/25 we find the reasons stated

Gani Lathifsahib Shakila Banu, Trichy vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Trichy

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

ITA 1952/CHNY/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1952/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gani Lathifsahib Shakila Banu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 12, A1, First Main Road, Ward 1(2), Ramalinga Nagar, Woriur S.O., Tiruchirappalli. Tiruchirappalli 620 003. [Pan:Bffps0785F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Aarif, Cma Advocate & Ms. Keerthana, 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 : 23.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.01.2024 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 465 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Support Of An Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri Aarif, CMA Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT
Section 69A

assessment year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 465 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay in support of an affidavit 2 I.T.A. No.1952/Chny/25 stating that against the impugned order, the assessee preferred writ petition and vide order dated

Mrt No.1 Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1934/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1933 & 1934/Chny/2025 Mrt No. 1 Charitable Trust, Vs. The Commissioner Income No. 16, Krishnama Road, (Exemption), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Aabtm7859A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 1933/Chny/2025 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 06.04.2022 Passed By The Ld. Pcit/Cit, Chennai In Form No. 10Ac Granting Provisional Approval Under Section 80G(5)(Iv) & 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeal In Ita No. 1934/Chny/2025 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.06.2025 By The Ld. Cit(Exemption), Chennai Rejecting Approval Under Section 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

1933/Chny/2024 for adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 1103 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay in support of an affidavit stating the following reasons: The captioned appeal was e-filed in the Registry of the Appellate Tribunal

Mrt No.1 Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1933/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1933 & 1934/Chny/2025 Mrt No. 1 Charitable Trust, Vs. The Commissioner Income No. 16, Krishnama Road, (Exemption), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Aabtm7859A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 1933/Chny/2025 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 06.04.2022 Passed By The Ld. Pcit/Cit, Chennai In Form No. 10Ac Granting Provisional Approval Under Section 80G(5)(Iv) & 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeal In Ita No. 1934/Chny/2025 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.06.2025 By The Ld. Cit(Exemption), Chennai Rejecting Approval Under Section 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

1933/Chny/2024 for adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 1103 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay in support of an affidavit stating the following reasons: The captioned appeal was e-filed in the Registry of the Appellate Tribunal

Kk 168 Naripalli Pacs Ld., Naripalli vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

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

ITA 1619/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1619/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Kk 168 Naripalli Primary Agri. Co- Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Operative Society Limited, Naripalli, Ward 1, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri. Tamil Nadu 636 906. [Pan:Aabak5075F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025 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 Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Bengaluru For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 2 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 Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 80P

year 2022-23. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 2 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 find the reasons stated by the assessee ... before 07.11.2022. The ld. AR submits that the assessee filed condonation petition under section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condoning the delay in filing return of income and same is pending before CCIT, Coimbatore. By relying upon the decision in the case of AA520 3 I.T.A. No.1619/Chny/25 Veerappampalayam

Shri Jamanlal N Gulati HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 20(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4691/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54Section 54F

other hand, Ld. DR has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) stating that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay and the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is legally perfect. Therefore, Ld. DR requested for dismissal of the appeal filed by the assessee ... have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The contents of the affidavit of the assessee claiming condonation of delay are extracted below:- I Rajkumar Gulati s/o Shri Jamanlal Gulati aged about 67 years old, residing at Mumbai take oath and state on solemn affirmation as under

Kanaram Kasaram Choudhary, Mumbai vs. Ward42(1)(3) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 4549/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250

noticed that the present appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 258 days and in this regard an affidavit for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under: 2 Kanaram Kasaram Choudhary, Mumbai. I Mr. Kanaram Kasaram Choudhary ... cause’ for not filing the appeal within time. 4. After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation of delay and considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court

Elco Arcade Res and Non Res. Premises Co Op Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4481/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shriom Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanelco Arcade Res & Non Res Ito 23(1)(3), Premisies Co-Operative Society Vs. Piramal Chamber, Ltd. Mumbai – 400 012 Elco Arcade, Hill Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400 050 Pan: Aaaae8544N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shripratik Jain, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Pushkarajbhangepatil, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

brought to our notice that the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 164 days. An application is moved seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the delay occurred because the intimation of Ld. CIT(A) order was received on the registered email ID of the society ... subsequently load into the income tax portal for other compliance purposes. It was submitted by the ld. AR that sufficient cause for condonation of delay has been shown and the appeal be admitted for hearing. The Ld. DR has opposed the condonation of delay stating that the explanation