← 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

Narayansinthy Gajendra Patro, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 13(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad

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

ITA 698/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Srikanth PolireddyFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Babu KN, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

condoned in the interest of justice. 3. Sri Suresh Babu KN, learned Sr. AR for Revenue, on the other hand, strongly opposed for condonation of delay and submitted that, the assessee could not explain reasons for delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal and, 3 ITA.No.698/Hyd./2025 therefore, submitted ... Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisituon vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) has laid down certain principles for condoning the delay and also directed the lower courts to follow a lenient approach for condoning the delay. Going by the principles laid down

Rain Cements, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 540/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr. AR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234CSection 246A

same being perverse. RE: GROUNDS ON REFUSAL TO CONDONE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL 3. That the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of approximately 3 months in the filing of the appeal and construing the delay to be of 1491 days computed from the date ... Officer u/sec.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.05.2020. The appellant had also filed a petition for 5 ITA.No.540/Hyd./2025 condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal and stated that, the intimation dated 25.03.2016 was served on the appellant through ITBA

Agras Residency Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1159/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

that there is a delay of 45 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that in Form No.35, the assessee ... contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The explanation offered by the assessee for the delay

Nagarjuna Engineering Constructions, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1081/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, M Chandramouleswara RaoFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena,Sr. AR
Section 143(1)

appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) was belated by 108 days, for which, the assessee-company has not filed any petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee-company ... filing petition for condonation of delay. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee-company is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. CA, M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the income tax return filed by the assessee-company was processed

D. E. Shaw India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1154/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1154/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. D.E. Shaw India Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Ltd., Hyderabad. Tax, Pan:Aaacd7214J Circle 8(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Adv. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. D E Shaw India Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. Ao”) U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 27.06.2024 For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 66 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal, For Which The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. As Per Record, The Appeal Was Required To Be Filed On Or Before

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, SR-DR
Section 143(3)

interest of justice. 4. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) fairly submitted that she has no serious objection to the condonation of delay in the present case, considering that the assessee had originally filed the appeal before the due date. 5. We have considered the rival submissions ... appeal. The Ld. DR also has not objected to the condonation. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that sufficient cause exists for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 66 days in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. The assessee

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Bio Green Papers Limited, Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 769/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: For Revenue : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 131

outset, there is a delay of 3 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue has filed petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed period duly explaining 2 ITA.No.908/Hyd./2025 the reasons. We, therefore, condone the delay

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata vs. Bothra Shipping Services Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the ground of appeal no

ITA 780/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2020-21 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata……………………………….……….……Appellant Vs. Bothra Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd ………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Sagar Estate, 2Nd Floor, Room No.10, Kol - 700001. [Pan: Aaecb6711E] Appearances By: Shri Raja Senguptda, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ankit Daga, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 143(2)Section 801A(4)(c)Section 80I

appeal has been filed by the revenue with a delay of 11 days. The revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay. The reasons in the petition are plausible and valid. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose off the appeal

Shri Sanatan Dharma Panchayat High School Mandawa, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 1476/KOL/2025[2026-2027]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2026-2027

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2026-27 Shri Sanatan Dharma Panchayat High School Mandawa….….……….……Appellant Block-A-11, 4Th Floor, 234/3A Ajc Bose Road, Kol - 700020. [Pan: Aaets8043F] Vs. Cit (Exemption), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kadel, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

Dharma Panchayat High School Mandawa the application filed in Form 10AB on the ground that Commissioner of Income Tax has no power to condone the delay in filing application in Form No.10AB for registration u/s 80G after due date. 3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee filed the present appeal before ... impugned order thereby submitting that the assessee has already granted application for regular approval u/s 12A by the ld. CIT(E) by condoning the delay of in filing Form 10AB but the ld. CIT(E) rejected the same in granting registration u/s 80G also filed in Form No.10AB by stating

Chaktentul Skus Ltd., Durgapur vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Durgapur

ITA 1464/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: 28-02-2024 & In The Process There Is Delay Of 403 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. The Main Reason Is The Appellant Was Suffering From Prolonged Illness & Was Under Medical Supervision. The Appellant Is Attaching A Copy Of Medical Certificate Issued By The Doctor In This Respect. 2. That The Limitation Period Prescribed In Income Tax Act, 1961 For Filing The Appeal Before This Appellate Tribunal Against The Order Of The Income Tax Officer Is 60 Days From The Date Of The Receipt Of The Impugned Order.

Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

that this appeal is delayed by 464 days by the assessee for whichthe assessee has filed the condonation petition along with affidavit for condonation of delay as under: 1. The Appellant could not file the instant appeal before 28-02-2024 and in the process there is delay ... therefore prayed this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, may graciously be pleased to admit this petition of the Appellant and condone the delay in filing the aforesaid Appeal.” 3 Considering the reasons mentioned in the said petition for condonation of the delay, the delay is hereby condoned

Indian Co-Operative Network for Women Limited, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 1(2), Nungambakkam

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1636/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S S Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1633 To 1636/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Indian Co-Operative Network For Ito, Women Limited Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(2), No. 55, Bheemasena Garden Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 004. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaaai-4488-B] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80P(2)(a)

days; the appeal for A.Y.2018-19 has been filed with a delay of 216 days. The assessee had filed an application seeking condonation of delay, duly supported by an affidavit setting forth the reasons for such delay. The assessee had stated that the delay in filing the appeals was neither wilful

Indian Co-Operative Network for Women Limited, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 1(2), Nungambakkam

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1635/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S S Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1633 To 1636/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Indian Co-Operative Network For Ito, Women Limited Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(2), No. 55, Bheemasena Garden Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 004. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaaai-4488-B] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80P(2)(a)

days; the appeal for A.Y.2018-19 has been filed with a delay of 216 days. The assessee had filed an application seeking condonation of delay, duly supported by an affidavit setting forth the reasons for such delay. The assessee had stated that the delay in filing the appeals was neither wilful

Indian Co-Operative Network for Women Limited, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 1(2), Nungambakkam

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1634/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S S Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1633 To 1636/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Indian Co-Operative Network For Ito, Women Limited Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(2), No. 55, Bheemasena Garden Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 004. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaaai-4488-B] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80P(2)(a)

days; the appeal for A.Y.2018-19 has been filed with a delay of 216 days. The assessee had filed an application seeking condonation of delay, duly supported by an affidavit setting forth the reasons for such delay. The assessee had stated that the delay in filing the appeals was neither wilful

Indian Co-Operative Network for Women Limited, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer Non Corp Ward 1(2), Nungambakkam

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1633/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S S Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1633 To 1636/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Indian Co-Operative Network For Ito, Women Limited Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(2), No. 55, Bheemasena Garden Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 004. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaaai-4488-B] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80P(2)(a)

days; the appeal for A.Y.2018-19 has been filed with a delay of 216 days. The assessee had filed an application seeking condonation of delay, duly supported by an affidavit setting forth the reasons for such delay. The assessee had stated that the delay in filing the appeals was neither wilful

M/S. Alternative for India Development, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-4, Chennai

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

ITA 1555/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1555/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Alternative For India Development, Income Tax Officer, No. 1, Vgn Nagar, Vs. Exemption Ward -4, Iyyappanthangal, Chennai. Kattupakkam Post, Chennai – 600 056. [Pan:Aaata-4184-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. K.Viswa Padmanabhan, Ca. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. K.Viswa Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)

assessee on 20.02.2024 against the order u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 30.08.2021. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed the condonation of delay petition stating that the statutory notices issued by the AO had not been received by the assessee and also the order passed u/s.143 ... assessee immediately took steps to file an appeal against the order of the AO and filed the same on 20.02.2024 and prayed for condonation of delay. The ld.CIT(A) after considering the exclusion of COVID-19 as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that still there

Palanisamy Anand, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

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

ITA 1528/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1528/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Palanisamy Anand, Income Tax Officer, D.No.2, Mariamman Kovil Street, Vs. Ward -1(6), Seshanchavadi, Valappadi Salem. Salem– 636 111. [Pan:Amcpa-1644-C] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 69

assessee on 16.11.2023 against the order u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee failed to file the condonation of delay petition with documentary evidence in support of his claim and explain with reasons for filing the appeal in delay during the appellate proceedings, in spite opportunity ... para 1.2 of its order. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in liminie as not :-3-: ITA. No:1528/Chny/2025 maintainable without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before us. 6. The ld.AR submitted that

Eagle Jewels Private Limited, Karol Bagh, New Delhi vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(2), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1562/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 143

22/08/2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 135 days in filing the present appeal. An application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee contending that the assessee was under the impression that the appeal has been filed by their ... delay of 135 days in filing the appeal, 2 Eagle Jewels Vs. ACIT which is not deliberate or intentional, thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. 3. For the reason stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 135 days in filing

Rakam Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-21(1), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1180/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Rakam Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito F-33/3, Okhla Industrial Area, Ward-21(1), Phase-Ii, New Delhi-110020 Delhi Pan: Aaacr028G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Mansi Jain, Ca & Sh. Mohan Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal

Section 143(3)Section 144B

been verified which resulted in passing of the ex-parte order by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought ... perused the material available on record on the issue of delay in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee in the Affidavit for condonation of delay contended that the Assessee has not verified the e-mail as the said e-mail id was sparingly used by the Assessee. Further stated that

Rahul Rastogi, New Delhi vs. PCIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 844/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 147Section 151Section 263

that there is a delay in filing of the appeal to extent of 640 days for which an application has been filed for condonation of delay on the basis that due to incorrect professional advice from regular tax consultant that the order was not appealable, the assessee, who is suffering ... opinion, the impugned order was not challengeable before the Tribunal. In the light of the aforesaid, we consider it appropriate case to condone the delay. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The assessee in the appeal in his hand has not only challenged the impugned order

Aashirwad Builders, Rajkot vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 66/RJT/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Shingala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

pressed. 4. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 10 days. The assessee moved a petition for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Ld. Counsel explained the reasons for delay stating that the assessee is a partnership firm and completed ... condoned in the interest of justice. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue, opposed the prayer of the assessee, for condonation of delay. 2 Aashirwad Builders vs. DCIT 5. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and noted that the assessee has explained the sufficient

Netink Technologies Private Limited, Bhopal vs. DCIT/ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

In the result the “impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 155/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshinetink Technologies Dcit/Acit 3(1), बनाम/ Private Limited, Bhopal Vs. Plot No.6, Behind Congress Bhawan, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aaecn4127C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 144Section 246ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 253

allow them to submit details and document to justify that demand raised by the A.O. is not correct. However, no application for condonation of delay has been submitted by the appellant. During the appellate proceedings, vide 2 notices u/s 250 of the Act dated 04.10.2024 & 23.10.2024, the appellant was specifically ... both the “impugned assessment Order” and so also the “impugned order” are not meritorious in nature. The assessee company has not filed any condonation of delay application before the Ld. CIT(A) [Section 249(3) of the Act]. The assessee company now desires this Tribunal to condone the delay which