← 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

Sankhla Suman, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1014/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1014/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17) Ms. Sankhla Suman, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-7(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan:Conps4670D (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Ms. Sankhla Suman (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Addl./Jcit (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh (“Ld. First Appellate Authority”), Dated 28.10.2024 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That There Is A Delay Of 161 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. However, The Assessee Has Not Filed Any

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, SR-DR

delay of 161 days in filing of the present appeal. However, the assessee has not filed any ITA No.1014/Hyd/2025 2 petition for condonation of delay, nor has any affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay been placed on record. Further, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee before this

Orbis Real Estate Fund I, Hyderabad (Auth. Rep.) vs. ADIT (International Taxation)-2 - 2, Hyderabad

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

ITA 785/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sai Sourabh K, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Narender Kumar Naik
Section 143(3)Section 154

delay of 356 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay dated 17.10.2024. In this regard, the learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. He further submitted that the impugned ... resolution process before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee subsequently filed the present appeal before this Tribunal on 22.12.2023 with a request for condonation of delay. The appeal was initially returned by the Registry due to technical defects, including lack of liquidator’s signature. The Ld. DR also submitted that

M P Birla Foundation Educational Society, Kolkata vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 989/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

instant case is whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee thereby condoning the delay in filing the Form I.T.A. No.: 989/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M P Birla Foundation Educational Society. 10B of the Act. The learned Tribunal ... issued under Section 119(2)(b) by which the powers delegated to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Commissioner of Income Tax to condone the delay in filing Form 10B beyond 365 days up to 3 years from the assessment year 2018-19 or for subsequent year. Applying the said

Samiruddin Khan, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Burdwan

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

ITA 1169/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 515 days. Aof an affidavit seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “I, Sri SAMIRUDDIN KHAN, s/o of Abdul Jabbar Khan residing at J B Hazra Road, Jailkhana More ... That my Son in Law was contacted a local Advocate for filing an appeal before 2d Appeal before the ITAT, Kolkata, with condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A)/NFAC. But the said Advocate has failed to file an appeal. I.T.A

Saligrama Rajendra Prasad Rashmi, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 2414/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

condonation of the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR opposed to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 6. We have carefully considered the condonation petition, the explanation offered by the assessee, and the submissions ... DCIT, 280 ITR 357 (Hon’ble Madras), the Courts have consistently held that a liberal approach should be adopted in considering applications for condonation of delay when no mala fide or deliberate negligence is attributable to the assessee. 6.1 In the facts before us, we find that the delay

Shri Parshwa Tilak Shwetamber Murtipujak Jain, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

ITA 4526/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R. A. DhyaniFor Respondent: Shri Shyam Saboo &
Section 10(23)(c)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

submitted by the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee that vide Submissions, dated 22/08/2025, filed by the Assessee specific request was made to condone the delay in filing the application even though the power to condone delay was available with the Ld. CIT(E) in view of the Proviso ... submissions made by the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee, the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Tribunal did not have power to condone the delay. It was submitted that since no application seeking condonation of delay was filed by the Assessee, the reliance placed by the Assessee on Proviso

Jai Mohan Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 4072/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble ()

For Respondent: Mr. Dhaval Shah/ Ms. Tisha Bagh
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 234BSection 271ASection 69C

confirmed and this ground of appeal is dismissed.” 4. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee sought condonation of delay of 374 days in filing the present appeal, placing reliance upon an affidavit explaining the circumstances. It was contended that the notices of hearing before the CIT(A) were

Sprit Infrapower & Multiventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1589/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)

verification.” 3. There is a delay of 279 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with the reasons for the delay. The relevant extract from the affidavit as given below: 4 ITA 1589/Mum/2025 Sprit Infrapower & Multiventures ... assessee but for the reasons explained hereinabove. 9) I repeat and reiterate the statements and averments made in the accompanying application for condonation of delay and they may be treated as reproduced verbatim in this affidavit. 10) I say that whatever stated above is true to the best

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 6315/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 23(1)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(VA)Section 9

that time the Jurisdictional High Court judgment in CIT v/s Ghatge Patil Transport Limited 2015(53) taxmann.com 141 as permitted the condonation of delay in depositing the employee contribution towards PF/ESIC even after the due datementioned in the statue, therefore it cannot be said to bea case of underreporting ... behalf of the assessee/appellant that the Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court at the time of relevant year of assessment has permitted the condonation of delay for late deposit of employee contribution of PF/ESIC after specified due date under the relevant Act but paid before due date of filing return

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 6309/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 23(1)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(VA)Section 9

that time the Jurisdictional High Court judgment in CIT v/s Ghatge Patil Transport Limited 2015(53) taxmann.com 141 as permitted the condonation of delay in depositing the employee contribution towards PF/ESIC even after the due datementioned in the statue, therefore it cannot be said to bea case of underreporting ... behalf of the assessee/appellant that the Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court at the time of relevant year of assessment has permitted the condonation of delay for late deposit of employee contribution of PF/ESIC after specified due date under the relevant Act but paid before due date of filing return

Govind Jee Dairymilk Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 10(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2036/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 144BSection 250

case of Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh in Civil Appeal Nos.2395 of 2008 dated 26.06.2010. It is thus requested for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR vehemently objected to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal and submits ... judicial 3 IT No.2036/Del/2025 Govind Jee Dairymilk Private Limited vs. ITO precedents relied upon by the assessee of hon’ble Apex court, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. 5. At the outset, from the perusal of the assessment order

Ashish Legal Foundation, Faridabad vs. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1418/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 8Section 80G

Legal Foundation v. CIT(Exemption ) Chandjgarh 2. The appeals are filed time barred by 35 days. The assessee has filed the applications for condonation of delay for 35 days. In the application the assessee has stated that due to illness he has not filed the appeal within prescribed time limit ... assessee has shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time limit. Therefore, we allow the application for condonation of delay. Delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the common grounds in both appeals:- 1. The Learned CIT (Exemption) has grossly erred

Ashish Legal Foundation, Faridabad vs. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1417/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 8Section 80G

Legal Foundation v. CIT(Exemption ) Chandjgarh 2. The appeals are filed time barred by 35 days. The assessee has filed the applications for condonation of delay for 35 days. In the application the assessee has stated that due to illness he has not filed the appeal within prescribed time limit ... assessee has shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time limit. Therefore, we allow the application for condonation of delay. Delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the common grounds in both appeals:- 1. The Learned CIT (Exemption) has grossly erred

Laxmi Narcinva Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Margao vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Margao

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

ITA 185/PAN/2025[2017-18/]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji09 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.185/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Laxmi Narcinva Urban Vs Ito-Ward-3, Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, Blessings Pioneer . Katkar Guru Ashish Building, Complex, 1 St Floor,Rua Clovis Costa Old Market, Road, Margoa-403601, Margoa-403601, Goa. Goa. Pan .No. Aaajl1003E (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri. Pramod.Y.Vaidya.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 08.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of Nfac/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay Of In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed The Application & Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & The Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections.

Section 68

delay of in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the application and affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. 2 ITA. No..185/PAN/2025 Laxmi Narcinva Urban Co-Operative ... Credit Society Limited. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the ex parte order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition u/se 68 of the Act made by the Assessing Officer. 3. The brief facts of the case

Moturu Chandra Sekhara Rao, Usa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 474/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Tribunal. In Respect Of The Belated Filing Of The Appeal, The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Relevant Contents Are Scanned & Pasted Herein Below:

Section 147Section 249(4)

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In respect of the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit and the relevant contents are scanned and pasted herein below: 3 Moturu Chandra Sekhara Rao vs. ITO 3. Considering ... there is a sufficient and reasonable cause that prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 47 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual

Antar Singh Mewada, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

Appeal of the assessed is allowed for statistical

ITA 416/IND/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiantar Singh Mewada, Cit(A), बनाम/ 1, Barkhera Salam 1, Nfac, Vs. Barkhera Salam, Delhi Po Bhouri, Techsil Hujur Dist. Bhopal (Pan:Bompm3467E) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

pointed out the delay of 73 days in preferring the present appeal. That Ld. AR has placed on record of this Tribunal a condonation of delay application along with an affidavit in support. It was contended by him basis that the delay of 73 days be condoned as the assessee ... behalf of the revenue submitted that the department has no objection if the delay is condoned. After hearing both the parties we condone the delay of 76 days as in our considered view the delay is bonafide and also sufficient cause has been shown. Accordingly the delay is condoned

Shree Khandiba De vs. TAN Trust, Punevs.CIT-Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1218/PUN/2025[-]Status: HeardITAT Pune09 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

informed that there is delay of 129 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. 3. After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 129 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a trust, filed application in Form No.10AB under clause

Chand Ratan Bahety, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 37(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1460/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1460/Pat/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Chand Ratan Bahety, Vs Ito Ward-37(4), Kolkata 4Th Floor, 6, Ritche, Kolkata-700019 Pan No. :Aehpb 2280 C (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, Fca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Archana Gupta, Addl.Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 11.06.2025 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Ms. Archana Gupta, Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For Delay Of 40 Days. It Was The Submission That The Assessment Order Dated 22.03.2016 Was Served On The Assessee On 07.04.2016. It Was The Submission That The Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A) Was Been Filed On 15.06.2016. It Was Submitted That This Was The First Year In Which Appeal Was Being Filed Through Online. It Was The Submission That The Cbdt Has Also Issued Circular No.20/2016, Dated 26Th May, 2016, Wherein It States As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Archana Gupta, Addl.CIT-Sr.DR

rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A) shows that the ld.CIT(A) has given detailed reasons for not condoning the delay and also no reasons have been provided by the assessee in regard to condonation of delay. This being so, we find no reason to interfere

Orion Pest Solutions Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Circle 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1455/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraorion Pest Solutions Pvt. Ltd Vs Ito, Circle-11(1), Kolkata 200W, S.P.Mukherjee Road, Kalighat So Kolkata-700026 Pan No. :Aabco 0290 J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 24.07.2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Praveen Kishore, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 277 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Delay, Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Ld. Cit-Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, Delay Of 277 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 277 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld. CIT-DR also ... raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, delay of 277 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 2 ITANo.1455/Kol/2025 4. Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer

Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Kolkata vs. Equipment Barter Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 1560/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250Section 68

Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 233 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the Revenue stating as under: I.T.A. No.: 1560/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Equipment Barter Private Limited. Date Particulars Remarks for delay appeal ... light of exception clause 3.1(h) of CBDT circular no 5/2024 dt. 15.03.2024 along with proper grounds of appeal and condonation of delay 05.07.2024 Resubmitted ASR as per direction of 5 days PCIT- 2, Kolkata 12.07.2024 Received back from CIT office with 7 days the Certificates 13.07.2024 to Preparation