← 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

Dungar Singh Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 563/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 148Section 270ASection 271Section 69A

notarised affidavit. The Ld. DR has no (Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19) objection to the request of the assessee for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the short delay of 21 days is condoned, and these appeals are admitted. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that ... taken as lead case for discussion of facts where the Ld. NFAC has dismissed all these appeals by rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing form 35, without appreciating reasonable & sufficient cause put forth by the appellant by observing as under: 2.1 In this regard, the appellant

Dungar Singh Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Jaipur

ITA 562/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

Section 148Section 270ASection 271Section 69A

filing theses appeals with the support of notarised affidavit. The Ld. DR has no objection to the request of the assessee for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the short delay of 21 days is condoned, and these appeals are admitted. 6. At the outset, the Id. counsel for the appellant submitted ... taken as lead case for discussion of facts where the Ld. NFAC has dismissed all these appeals by rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing form 35, without appreciating reasonable & sufficient cause put forth by the appellant by observing as under: 2.1 In this regard, the appellant

Dungar Singh Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 425/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 148Section 270ASection 271Section 69A

notarised affidavit. The Ld. DR has no (Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19) objection to the request of the assessee for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the short delay of 21 days is condoned, and these appeals are admitted. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that ... taken as lead case for discussion of facts where the Ld. NFAC has dismissed all these appeals by rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing form 35, without appreciating reasonable & sufficient cause put forth by the appellant by observing as under: 2.1 In this regard, the appellant

Dungar Singh Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Jaipur

ITA 424/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

Section 148Section 270ASection 271Section 69A

filing theses appeals with the support of notarised affidavit. The Ld. DR has no objection to the request of the assessee for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the short delay of 21 days is condoned, and these appeals are admitted. 6. At the outset, the Id. counsel for the appellant submitted ... taken as lead case for discussion of facts where the Ld. NFAC has dismissed all these appeals by rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing form 35, without appreciating reasonable & sufficient cause put forth by the appellant by observing as under: 2.1 In this regard, the appellant

Dungar Singh Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 423/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 148Section 270ASection 271Section 69A

notarised affidavit. The Ld. DR has no (Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19) objection to the request of the assessee for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the short delay of 21 days is condoned, and these appeals are admitted. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that ... taken as lead case for discussion of facts where the Ld. NFAC has dismissed all these appeals by rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing form 35, without appreciating reasonable & sufficient cause put forth by the appellant by observing as under: 2.1 In this regard, the appellant

Dungar Singh Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 422/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 148Section 270ASection 271Section 69A

notarised affidavit. The Ld. DR has no (Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19) objection to the request of the assessee for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the short delay of 21 days is condoned, and these appeals are admitted. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that ... taken as lead case for discussion of facts where the Ld. NFAC has dismissed all these appeals by rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing form 35, without appreciating reasonable & sufficient cause put forth by the appellant by observing as under: 2.1 In this regard, the appellant

Lalji Yadav, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer- 6(2), Lucknow

ITA 804/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Income Tax Officer-6(2)
Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The appellant assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express ... objection to the delay being condoned. Being satisfied with the reasons stated in application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal; we condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. (B) In this case, the assessment order dated

Sri Sainath Associates, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 649/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned ... Being satisfied with the reasons stated in application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal; we condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. I.T.A. No.649/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 (C) In this case, the assessment order dated

Shashi Infra Construction Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. ITO, Lucknow

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

ITA 353/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shashi Infra V. The Constructions Pvt Ltd Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asstt/Income 328B, 5Th Lane Rajendra Tax Officer, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226004. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaucs5802M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 694ASection 69A

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned ... Being satisfied with the reasons stated in application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal; we condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. (B) In this case, the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 was passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read

Life Care Foundation, Derabassi vs. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

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

ITA 400/CHANDI/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Sept 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: The Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Nayyar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 5Section 8

true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Dated 07.04.2025 Place Derabassi 3. Ld. DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay. 4. After considering the contents of the affidavit for condonation of delay, we are of the view that the delay of 292 days deserves to be condoned

Anirudh Gupta, Sirsa vs. Income Tax Officer, Sirsa

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 257/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 257/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Shri Anirudh Gupta, Vs The Ito (Exemptions), 22-Scf C/O M/S Sat Narain Ward-1, Brij Bhushan, Addl. Mandi, Sirsa. Sirsa. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Agipg2244E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Lalit Mohan, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 194Q

days and there is a shortage in payment of Tribunal Fees by Rs.9500/-. The assessee has filed an application for A.Y.2022-23 2 condonation of delay. He has made up the deficiency of Tribunal fees. As far as delay is concerned, we find that assessee has filed an appeal before ITAT ... account of approaching wrong jurisdiction of the ITAT Bench, otherwise there was no deliberate attempt to make the appeal time barred. Accordingly, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 3. The assessee has taken six grounds of appeal which contain two sub-grounds in Ground

Shri Martand Deosansthan Jejuri, Pune vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

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

ITA 593/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachin KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

assessee has filed this appeal with a delay of 31 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with a sworn affidavit stating therein the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal. On perusal of the same, we are satisfied that the delay in filing ... order of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing that the assessee has already filed an application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B to the prescribed authority and the AO, JCIT(A), CIT(A) do not have authority under section

Kartheesan, Chennai vs. Non Corp Circle 8(1) Che, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1751/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1751/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kartheesan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1/128, Trunk Road, Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Ayyappanthangal, Chennai 600 056. Chennai. [Pan:Ajepk0127F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.P. Venkateshwara Perumal, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 110 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

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Venkateshwara PerumalFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 92(2)

year 2015-16. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 110 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 2 I.T.A. No.1751/Chny/25 find the reasons stated

M/S. Ebek Language Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Trichy vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1508/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1507 & 1508/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2022-23 & 2023-24 M/S. Ebek Language Dcit Laboratories Pvt Ltd., Vs. Circle 1(1), No. 6A, 4Th Floor, Gvr Complex, Trichy. Lawsons Road, Trichy – 620 001. [Pan: Aabce-7268-C] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Arv. Sreenivasan. Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV. Sreenivasan. CIT
Section 115BSection 143(1)

extended). Accordingly, the CPC had applied normal rate of tax of 30%. The assessee also has filed a petition before CBDT seeking condonation of delay u/s.119 (2)( b) of the Act, for belated filing of Form 10-IC on account of illness of the then consulting Chartered Accountant. 5. Aggrieved ... 1508/Chny/2025 reason that the consulting Chartered Accountant was unwell. Further, the assessee also submitted that it has filed a petition before CBDT seeking condonation for delay in filing Form 10-IC belatedly u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act. It is also stated that section 115BAA specifically gave an option

M/S. Ebek Language Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Trichy vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1507/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1507 & 1508/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2022-23 & 2023-24 M/S. Ebek Language Dcit Laboratories Pvt Ltd., Vs. Circle 1(1), No. 6A, 4Th Floor, Gvr Complex, Trichy. Lawsons Road, Trichy – 620 001. [Pan: Aabce-7268-C] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Arv. Sreenivasan. Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV. Sreenivasan. CIT
Section 115BSection 143(1)

extended). Accordingly, the CPC had applied normal rate of tax of 30%. The assessee also has filed a petition before CBDT seeking condonation of delay u/s.119 (2)( b) of the Act, for belated filing of Form 10-IC on account of illness of the then consulting Chartered Accountant. 5. Aggrieved ... 1508/Chny/2025 reason that the consulting Chartered Accountant was unwell. Further, the assessee also submitted that it has filed a petition before CBDT seeking condonation for delay in filing Form 10-IC belatedly u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act. It is also stated that section 115BAA specifically gave an option

Mysore Race Club Limited, Mysore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Mysore

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

ITA 695/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40A(3)

appellant humbly prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal considering the facts of the present case takes lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay in filing the present appeal against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC. 14. The appellant places reliance on the decision ... case of CIT & Another Vs. ISRO Satellite Center, in ITA No. 532 of 2008 and other batch of appeal order dated 28/10/2011 has condoned the delay of 5 years in filing the appeal before the CIT[A], the relevant observation is at para 28 page 72 of the order

Mysore Race Club Limited, Mysore vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Mysore

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

ITA 694/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40A(3)

appellant humbly prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal considering the facts of the present case takes lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay in filing the present appeal against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC. 14. The appellant places reliance on the decision ... case of CIT & Another Vs. ISRO Satellite Center, in ITA No. 532 of 2008 and other batch of appeal order dated 28/10/2011 has condoned the delay of 5 years in filing the appeal before the CIT[A], the relevant observation is at para 28 page 72 of the order

Muniyappa Muniraju, Bengaluru vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1119/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Muniyappa Muniraju, Vs. Pr. Cit, No.1/3, 1St Cross, Muni Narasimhaiah Bangalore - 2. Garden, Chocolate Factory Main Road, Btm I Stage, Bangalore – 560 029, Karnataka. Pan : Anjpm 0458 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194HSection 263Section 44A

appreciated by your Honour.  It is humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] takes lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay of about 34 days in filing the present appeal against the order of the learned Assessing Officer under section 143[3] r.w.s. 263 r.w.s ... hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice.  It is humbly submitted that if this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is not allowed, the appellant / Petitioner would be put to great hardship and irreparable injury and on the other hand

Akbar Mohammadli Kazi, Dadar East vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4799/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Akbar Mohammadli Kazi Ito, Ward – 28(1)(1), Mumbai 214, 2Nd Floor, Wadala Udyog Bhavan Vs Vashi Railway Station Complex, Naigaon, Cross Road, Dadar East, Navi Mumbai – 400703. Mumbai – 400031. [Pan: Afapk0759D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 250Section 254(1)Section 43CSection 50C(2)

assessee fairly submits that there is delay of 59 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed his affidavit for condonation of delay in filing appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee ... assessee had already been dismissed. The assessee immediately took step and filed the present appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee prayed for condoning the delay. On merit, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee is a proprietor of Evergreen Enterprises and partner in the firm Evergreen Developer

Bhavana Manoj Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4581/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailbhavana Manoj Singh, Flat No. 404, Kamal Apartment, Lokhandwala Complex, Opp. Rna Market, Azad Nagar, ............... Appellant Mumbai-400053. Pan : Bchps6429M V/S Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(1), ……………… Respondent Piramal Chambers, Mumbai – 400012. Assessee By : Shri Haridas Bhatt Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 69Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeal, ignoring the bona fide for delay in filing and merits of the case ... appeal. With regards to the same we submit that the appellant has filed the appeal along with a request for condonation. Prayer for condonation of delay in filing of appeal is re-stated as follow: "The Income-tax Officer passed the Assessment Order Uls 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income