← 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

Vanigota Sugar Trading Company, Vijapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2545/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 253(5)Section 263

prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Apex Court, if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalize injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Therefore, this ... Tribunal is bound to remove the injustice Vanigota Sugar Trading Company, Vijaypur Page 8 of 19 by condoning the delay on technicalities. If the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalizing an illegal order which would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the State by retaining

Abhishek Agarwal, Dehradun vs. ITO, W01(1)(1), Dehradun

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 103/DDN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.104/Ddn/2025 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Abhishek Agarwal, Income Tax Officer, Near Town Area Office, Ward-1(1)(1), Doiwala, Distt Dehradun, Vs. Dehradun. Uttarakhand-248140. Pan-Alzpa7733L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Department By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025

perusal of the records, it is found that the present appeal is delayed by 309 days. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by duly sworn in affidavit. The contents of the affidavit are reproduced as under: “I, Abhishek Agarwal son of Late Shri Tara Chand Agarwal ... powers to legalise injustice on technical grounds but on expectation of your capabilities to remove injustice. 14. That the Appellant's application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal is supported by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of of Rafiq v. Munshilal

Jasbir Singh, Khatima, U.S. Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Rudrapur

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

ITA 96/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 250Section 253

perusal of the records, it is found that the present appeal is delayed by 309 days. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by duly sworn in affidavit. The condonation application is reproduced as under: “Sub: Application for condonation of delay and Stay of demand. Statement ... deponent has no fund to deposit the demand created illegally and arbitrary against the deponent. 8) That the contents of application for condonation of delay are treated as part of this affidavit.” 4. After considering the facts and the prayer of the assessee, we find that there was bonafide

Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Delhi vs. ACIT, Dehradun

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 40/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 139(1)Section 153C

same. No soon order was taken from ITBA portal, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The ld. AR thus, prayed for the condonation of delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. Rakesh Sharma vs. ACIT 3. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR submits that ... reasons given by the assessee is not supported by any evidence, therefore, he requested for the dismissal of the petition for condonation of delay. 4. Heard both the parties. From the perusal of the delay condonation petition, we find that the reason given by the assessee is bonafide and there

Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Delhi vs. ACIT, Dehradun

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 39/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 139(1)Section 153C

same. No soon order was taken from ITBA portal, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The ld. AR thus, prayed for the condonation of delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. Rakesh Sharma vs. ACIT 3. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR submits that ... reasons given by the assessee is not supported by any evidence, therefore, he requested for the dismissal of the petition for condonation of delay. 4. Heard both the parties. From the perusal of the delay condonation petition, we find that the reason given by the assessee is bonafide and there

Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Delhi vs. ACIT, Dehradun

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 38/DDN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

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

Section 139(1)Section 153C

same. No soon order was taken from ITBA portal, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The ld. AR thus, prayed for the condonation of delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. Rakesh Sharma vs. ACIT 3. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR submits that ... reasons given by the assessee is not supported by any evidence, therefore, he requested for the dismissal of the petition for condonation of delay. 4. Heard both the parties. From the perusal of the delay condonation petition, we find that the reason given by the assessee is bonafide and there

Shri Dipakkumar Parsotamdas Asanani, Village Jetpur, Dist. Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 1 (2) (1), Rajkot

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

ITA 435/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 435/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dipakkumar Parsotamdas Asanani Asanani Ito, Nfac, Delhi Prop. Jay Jalaram Enterprise, M. G. , M. G. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot – 360370 Road, Rajkot - 360001 Pan : Aecpa2955G (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By Assessee By : Shri Brijesh Parekh,Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. D. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh,Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld
Section 147Section 148

assessee is barred by limitation of 117 days. The 117 days. The assessee has submitted petition for condo assessee has submitted petition for condonation of delay requesting the Bench nation of delay requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The content the delay. The contents of the petition for condonation ... delay are of the petition for condonation of delay are reproduced below; Dipakkumar P. Asanani “In connection with the above appeal the applicant most humbly and respectfully onnection with the above appeal the applicant most humbly and respectfully onnection with the above appeal the applicant most humbly and respectfully begs

Savitaben Nathalal Vadi, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 426/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

issue himself.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 153 days. The assessee moved a petition for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condoned the delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee is a women of 70 years ... interest of justice. 4. On the contrary, the Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee to condone the delay and stated that delay should not be condoned on such reasons, as explained by the assessee, and appeal of the assessee should be dismissed

Shri Bhimabhai Karshanbhai Gareja, Fulrama, Tal. Magrol, Dist. Junagadh vs. The ACIT Circle1, Junagadh

In the result, both these appeals (ITA 415 & 416/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017-18) of

ITA 416/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Maheta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 253(3)

416/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017-18) is barred by limitation by 566 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone of delay. The contents of condonation of delay, are as follows; “1. It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant herein has filed appeal. However, a delay ... days has occurred in filing the appeal before your honour. Hence, this application for the condonation of delay. 2. The period of limitation for filing the appeal under section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is sixty days of the date of service of the notice of demand

Shri Dayabhai Karshanbhai Gareja, Mangrol, District Junagadh vs. The ACIT Circle1, Junagadh

In the result, both these appeals (ITA 415 & 416/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017-18) of

ITA 415/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Maheta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 253(3)

416/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017-18) is barred by limitation by 566 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone of delay. The contents of condonation of delay, are as follows; “1. It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant herein has filed appeal. However, a delay ... days has occurred in filing the appeal before your honour. Hence, this application for the condonation of delay. 2. The period of limitation for filing the appeal under section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is sixty days of the date of service of the notice of demand

Shri Nathalal Arjanbhai Nageshri, Patan vs. The ITO Ward-2 (1), Jamnagar

ITA 920/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Darshak Trivedi Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-DR

ITA No. 919 & 920/Rjt/2024 Nathalal Arjanbhai Nageshi आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,राजकोट न्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC

Shri Nathalal Arjanbhai Nageshri, Patan vs. The ITO Ward-2 (1), Jamnagar

ITA 919/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Darshak Trivedi Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-DR

ITA No. 919 & 920/Rjt/2024 Nathalal Arjanbhai Nageshi आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोट न्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC

Baldevbhai Vithhakbhai Patel, Pardi vs. ITO, Ward 1, Vapi

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

ITA 582/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat12 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Am. Smatpt Sitet Bta No.582/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 68

late by 20 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. It has been stated that the notices by the CIT(A) were sent on wrong e-mail ... filed appeal before the CIT(A). There was a delay of 150 days in filing appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) condoned the delay and disposed the appeal on merits. He has reproduced the Statement of Facts along with grounds of appeal are at pages

Suri Babu Krovvidi, Rajahmundry vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada

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

ITA 409/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.409/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Suri Babu Krovvidi Vs. Income Tax Officer East Godavari Distt. Vijayawada Pan:Aejpk1777P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Naresh Gowlikar, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21/02/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 56 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay To Explain The Cause Of The Delay Which Is Supported By An Affidavit. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Is A Layman & The Assessee Was Not Having Any Knowledge About The Tax & Procedural Requirement Of Filing The Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Cit (A). He Has Further

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Gowlikar, CA (hybrid)For Respondent: : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 17

relating to A.Y.2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 56 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay to explain the cause of the delay which is supported by an affidavit. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee ... considered and decided the appeal of the assessee on merit but the same was dismissed in limine by declining to condone the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal. Thus, he has submitted that the appeal of the assessee may be admitted for adjudication on merits otherwise it would

Kishore Sewani, Bhopal vs. ITO-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 248/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi & Kishore Sewani, Ito-1(4) बनाम/ House No.33, Parika Bhopal Vs. Society, Phase-1, Chunabhatti, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Ankps8260M Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

delay should be condoned. In the situation, Ld. DR for revenue left the matter for the wisdom of bench without raising objection against condonation of delay. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found

Kishore Sewani, Bhopal vs. ITO-1(4), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 517/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

Nos.517/Ind/2024 & ITANo.248/Ind/2025 - A.Y. 2013-14 To, The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CGO Complex, Shivaji Chouraha, A.B. Road, INDORE-452 001 INDORE-A22 Sub: - Condonation of delay in Filing Appeal of Kishore Sewani against CIT (A)-Bhopal- 1/10012/2016-17 order u/s. 250 dtd. 27.01.2023 for the Asst. Year 2013-14. Respected ... delay should be condoned. In the situation, Ld. DR for revenue left the matter for the wisdom of bench without raising objection against condonation of delay. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found

Shiv Prakash Mohpal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1124/JPR/2025[AY 14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalshiv Prakash Mohpal, M-132, Ashiana Utsav, Near Ram Kutiya Manchwa, Jaipur 303 706 Pan No.: Adxpm 1645D ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Brijesh Gupta, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 250Section 90

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - 1. Honourable commissioner of Income tax Appeal has erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. 2 Shiv Prakash Mohpal 2. The honourable commissioner of Income tax Appeal has erred in not deciding the appeal on merit and allowing deduction under ... there on the record of ld. CIT (A) also, he should have been allowed the appeal of the assessee on merits after condonation of delay. 7. We have gone through the documents filed by the assessee issued by the Internal Revenue Service, United States Department of the Treasury. Which confirms

Suyash Solutions Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT Circle-5, Pune

Accordingly, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 576/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.576/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Suyash Solutions Pvt. Ltd., V The Dy.Cit, S.No.145, Pune Saswad Road, S. Circle-5, Pune. Opp,.Navalakha Godown, Phursungi, Pune – 412308. Maharashtra. Pan: Aajcs7144M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mihir C Naniwadekar & Shri B.D.Bhide – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-1, Gurugram Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2010-11, Dated 22.01.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(1) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 23.02.2011. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

order passed by the ld.CIT(A) may be vacated and Hon'ble Tribunal may direct the ld.CIT(A) to admit the appeal by condoning the delay and decide the appeal o9n merit else, Hon'ble Tribunal may admit the appeal and decide the same on merits of the case since ... before an appeal order is passed.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay, there was sufficient reason for delay, hence ld.CIT(A) may be directed to 2 ITA No.576/PUN/2025 [A] condone the delay and decide the appeal

Mr. Vijay Bajirao Balwadkar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 2(2) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1637/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare
Section 14Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

informed that there is delay of 345 days in preferring the instant appeal before this Tribunal. Appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeal. 2 Vijay Bajirao Balwadkar 3. After hearing both the sides and perusing ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 345 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions

Mohammed Gouse Moinuddin, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 900/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri R. Mohan KumarFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena,Sr. AR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69A

appeal for adjudication. 3. Sri Madan Mohan Meena, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, did not strongly object for condonation of delay of 52 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the parties, perused the affidavit filed by the assessee ... reasonable and sufficient cause’ for the assessee in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed date. We, therefore, condone the delay of 52 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee