← 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

Shri Nityanand Pandey, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 2067/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250

Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 108 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “That the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has passed the order for the assessment year ... petition a reasonable opportunity of hearing is craved for by your petitioner.” 1.2. The assessee has also filed an affidavit dated 11.03.2025 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Considering the application as well as the affidavit for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein

The Tiruvannamalai Coop Urban Bank Ltd., Tiruvannamalai vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Vellore

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

ITA 2016/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2016/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Tiruvannamalai Co-Op The Income Tax Officer, Urban Bank Ltd., Vs. Circle 1, 87/18, Sannadhi Street, Vellore Tiruvannamalai – 606 601. Pan: Aaeft 9897Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Murali, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, C.A ""For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,JCIT
Section 250Section 270A

There is a delay of 51 days in filing the appeal. The Managing Director of the assessee society, has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating there in the reason for belated filing of this appeal. The reason stated is that the assessee had not received the order passed ... perusal of the reason stated, we find there is sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. At the very outset, we notice that the order of First

Syed Khaja Mohideen, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-17(7), Chennai

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

ITA 1991/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1991/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Syed Khaja Mohideen, The Income Tax Officer, Khaja & Sait, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 17(7), Block 3D, Door No.9, Chennai. Murrays Gate Road, Venus Colony, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aseps 9976R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Khaja Mohideen, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Khaja Mohideen, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,JCIT
Section 250

been filed before ITAT on or before 28.12.2024. However, the appeal was filed belatedly on 16.07.2025. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and affidavit stating there in the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reason stated is that the assessee ... perusal of the reason stated, we find there is sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. At the very outset, we notice that the order passed

K Paramasivan & Sons, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp. Circlr-19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1727/CHNY/2025[2012 13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1727/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri K. Paramasivan & Sons, The Deputy Commissioner 89, Anna Salai, Vs. Of Income Tax, Guindy, Non-Corporate Ward 19(1), Chennai – 600 032. Chennai. Pan: Aakfk 7053P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

been filed before ITAT on or before 30.05.2025. However, the appeal was filed belatedly on 13.06.2025. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating there in the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reason stated is that the assessee had handed over the impugned order ... perusal of the reasons stated, we find there is sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee read as follows

Church of Our Lady of Immaculate Conception, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4999/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)

allowed to the assessee. 3. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that in A.Y. 2023-24, the assessee filed application for condonation of delay 29 days before ld. CIT(E), however he refused to condone the delay. However, on filing Writ Petition (W.P.) before Hon’ble Jurisdictional High ... various bench of Tribunal and High Courts held that the tax authorities must have justice-oriented approach rather than pedantic, and to condone the delay. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following decisions:  Lokumal Dishinchand Charitable Trust vs ITO (ITA No. 1267/M/2025)  Snehasadan

Church of Our Lady of Immaculate Conception, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4998/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)

allowed to the assessee. 3. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that in A.Y. 2023-24, the assessee filed application for condonation of delay 29 days before ld. CIT(E), however he refused to condone the delay. However, on filing Writ Petition (W.P.) before Hon’ble Jurisdictional High ... various bench of Tribunal and High Courts held that the tax authorities must have justice-oriented approach rather than pedantic, and to condone the delay. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following decisions:  Lokumal Dishinchand Charitable Trust vs ITO (ITA No. 1267/M/2025)  Snehasadan

Balkrishna Devraj Dubey, Bhayander East, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 42(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4941/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Adesh Rai, Ld. Sr. D.R. (Virtually)
Section 250

reply to 14 is Yes, enter : Yes, inadvertent mistake of the Assessee the rounds for delay Neither filed any application for condonation of delay nor submitted any affidavit and therefore the Ld. Commissioner was constrained to dismiss the appeal in limine for want of limitation. 3. The Assessee by filling ... sworn affidavit, appears to as bonafide, genuine and unintentional, however the Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner failed to file any proper application for condonation of delay, thus for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to remand the case to the file

Santosh Ganpat Bhor, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4934/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Santosh Ganpat Bhor, Dcit, Circle 3(1)(1), B/6, Swami Coop Hsg Society, Mumbai M.N. Joshi Marg, Maharashtra Vs. Byculla (W) Mumbai Maharashtra – 400 027 Pan: Agupb5584G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ramesh Jain, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short “Ld. Commissioner”) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. It Appears From The Impugned Order That There Was Delay Of 3 Years & 8 Months (1391Days) Starting From 16.05.2021 To 05.02.2025. Admittedly The Hon’Ble Apex In Suo Motu Case No. 3/2023 Has Excluded/Waived The Covid-19 Period I.E. From 15.03.2020 To 27.02.2022 From The Limitation Period, If Any Expired, During That Time & Therefore, Said Period Is Liable To Be 2 Mr. Santosh Ganpat Bhor Excluded. Thus, After Excluding The Said Period From 15.03.2020 To 27.02.2022, The Remaining Delay Would Be 1054 Days Only.

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 250

however, it is a fact that Assessee without filing any proper application alongwith any document and duly shown affidavit substantiating the reason for condonation of delay, simply mentioned the fact qua delay in Form 35. 5. Therefore, the Ld. Commissioner, on the aforesaid reasons was constrained to decide the appeal ... considering appropriate application alongwith duly sworn affidavit and other supporting documents, which the Assessee undertakes to file before him. In the event of condoning the delay, the Ld. Commissioner shall decide the appeal on merit. 9. Thus, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Gu-Pier Foundation, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(Exemption), Gujarat

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

ITA 4910/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2023-24 M/S. Gu-Pier Foundation, Income Tax Officer, Gusec West Wing, Ward -1 (Exemption), Nr. Department Of Boyany Income Tax Office, University Vejalpur, School Of Science, Vs. Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 380015 Gujarat University S.O. Ahmedabad Gujarat – 380 009 Pan: Aahcg6715C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jainish Parikh, Ld. A.R. (Virtually) Revenue By : Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.02.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short “Ld. Commissioner”) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2023-24. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 96 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee In Support Of Its Claim Qua Condonation Of Delay Of 96 Days, Has Claimed As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Jainish Parikh, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 13(10)Section 143(1)Section 250

observed that there is a delay of 96 days in filing the present appeal. The Assessee in support of its claim qua condonation of delay of 96 days, has claimed as under: “1. Dr Neerja A Gupta, Director and Chairman of GU PIER Foundation, do hereby solemnly affirm and state

Asha Himmat Bhadra, Mumbai vs. DCIT -Circle 32(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4764/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Asha Himmat Bhadra, Dcit – Circle 32(1) 401 Beach Apartment, Kautilya Bhavan, Balraj Sahani Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Near Novotel Hotel, Vs. Bandra (East) Juhu, Mumbai, Mumbai, Mumbai Maharashtra– 400 051 Maharashtra – 400 049 Pan: Aabpb7076J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short “Ld. Commissioner”) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Though In The Instant Case, Both The Parties Have Filed Adjournment Applications, However, This Court Observes That The Impugned Order Is An Ex-Parte & Therefore It Would Be Appropriate To Dismiss The Adjournment Requests & To Proceed With The Case To Decide The Same. Thus, The Adjournments Requests Are Declined & Case Is Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 68

requests are declined and case is proceeded with. 2 Ms. Asha Himmat Bhadra 3. Considering the reason stated by the Assessee for the condonation of delay of 58 days in filing of this appeal, along with dully sworn affidavit and the medical certificate, as reasonable, bonafide and unintentional, the delay

Anandmangal Investment and Finance Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4166/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh & Shri Akshay PawarFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (SR DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

Registry has reported that the appeal was filed with a delay of 454 days. The Ld. AR submitted petition for condonation of delay with two affidavits executed by the Directors of the company and the Chartered Accountant of the assessee- company. One affidavit, affirmed on 06/09/2025 by Shri Narendra ... separate affidavit of Shri Prakash Shah, Chartered Accountant, duly affirmed on 04/09/2025, has been filed in original. The Ld. DR opposed the condonation of delay of 454 days, though notably, he raised no objection regarding the service of the appellate order on the Chartered Accountant’s email instead

Ssgr Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited, Haldwani vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Haldwani

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 73/DDN/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69B

Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2015-16 respectively. 2. There is a delay of 18 days in filing the captioned Appeals. Application for condonation of delay have been filed in all the Appeals contending that the Assessee could not file the Appeals on time due to the reason that ... issues, the Assessee could not file the Appeal on time which caused delay of 18 days in filing theabove Appeals. Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing he Appeals. 3. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 18 days in filing

Ssgr Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited, Haldwani vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Haldwani

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 72/DDN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69B

Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2015-16 respectively. 2. There is a delay of 18 days in filing the captioned Appeals. Application for condonation of delay have been filed in all the Appeals contending that the Assessee could not file the Appeals on time due to the reason that ... issues, the Assessee could not file the Appeal on time which caused delay of 18 days in filing theabove Appeals. Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing he Appeals. 3. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 18 days in filing

Ssgr Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited, Haldwani vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Haldwani

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 71/DDN/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69B

Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2015-16 respectively. 2. There is a delay of 18 days in filing the captioned Appeals. Application for condonation of delay have been filed in all the Appeals contending that the Assessee could not file the Appeals on time due to the reason that ... issues, the Assessee could not file the Appeal on time which caused delay of 18 days in filing theabove Appeals. Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing he Appeals. 3. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 18 days in filing

Ssgr Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited, Haldwani vs. DCIT/ACIT, Cental Circle, Haldwani

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 70/DDN/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69B

Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2015-16 respectively. 2. There is a delay of 18 days in filing the captioned Appeals. Application for condonation of delay have been filed in all the Appeals contending that the Assessee could not file the Appeals on time due to the reason that ... issues, the Assessee could not file the Appeal on time which caused delay of 18 days in filing theabove Appeals. Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing he Appeals. 3. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 18 days in filing

Ssgr Hospital & Research Centre Private Limited, Haldwani vs. Dc/ACIT, Central Cirlce, Haldwani

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 41/DDN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69B

Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2015-16 respectively. 2. There is a delay of 18 days in filing the captioned Appeals. Application for condonation of delay have been filed in all the Appeals contending that the Assessee could not file the Appeals on time due to the reason that ... issues, the Assessee could not file the Appeal on time which caused delay of 18 days in filing theabove Appeals. Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing he Appeals. 3. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 18 days in filing

Jagdish Savant, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Belgaum

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

ITA 227/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.227/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Jagdish Shambhu Savant, Vs Ito-Ward-4, 102,Kaivalya Residency, Feroj Khimjibhai Cpx, . Budhwar Peth, Civil Hospital Road Belagavi-590006, Belagavi-590001. Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan/Gir No. Assps9453P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 68

there could be various reasons for no proper compliance. Whereas the application U/sec 249(3) of the Act for condonation of delay of 7 days in filling the appeal was not filed before the CIT(A) by the assessee. Therefore considering the facts, circumstances and principles of natural justice, shall ... provide with one more opportunity to the assessee to file the application for condonation of delay before the CIT(A) explaining the sufficient cause and the CIT(A) should fallow a pragmatic approach for condonation of delay and in accordance with the provisions of law. Accordingly, set aside the order

The Daivadnya Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Karwar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 226/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos. 226/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15 ) The Daivadnya Cooperative Vs I T O, Credit Society Limited, National E Assessment . 1,Near Busstand, Centre, Maruti Galli, Delhi. Karwar-581301, . Uttara Kannada, Karnataka. Pan .No.Aaaad2169G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 80P

226/PAN/2025 The Daivadnya cooperative credit society limited. before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed an application and the affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, condone the delay and admit

Bharat Hanchinale, Chikodi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nippani

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

ITA 219/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos. 219/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21) Bharat Hanchinale, Vs National Faceless 1081,Hanabar Galli, Assessment Centre, . Khadaklat, Chikodi, New Delhi-110003. Belgaum-591228. Karnataka. Pan/Gir No. Aojph8149C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 69A

there could be various reasons for no proper compliance. Whereas the application U/sec 249(3) of the Act for condonation of delay of 29 days in filling the appeal was not filed before the CIT(A) by the assessee. 6. Hence considering the facts, circumstances and principles of natural justice ... shall provide with one more opportunity to the assessee to file the application for condonation of delay before the CIT(A) explaining the sufficient and reasonable cause and the CIT(A) should fallow a pragmatic approach for condonation of delay and in accordance with the provisions of law. Accordingly

Akash Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

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

ITA 433/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.431 & 432/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Pooja Agrawal C/O. Subash Agrawal & Associates Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700 069 Pan: Amcpa7626A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT-DR

from our end in case the matter is restored back to the file of lower authorities.” As the contents of the affidavit regarding condonation of delay are similarly worded for remaining appeals i.e. ITA No. 432/RPR/2025 & ITA No.433/RPR/2025 for A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-2021, therefore, for the sake of brevity, the same ... Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, we condone the delay of 41, 46 & 60 days, respectively involved in the captioned appeals. 6. At the very outset, it is noted that as per Para