← 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

Durga Srinivasarao Yadlapalli, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

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

ITA 355/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 355/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Durga Srinivasarao Yadlapalli, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Pan: Anqpy8915K Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Mv Prasad, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 04/09/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

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 and the relevant contents are scanned and pasted herein below: “….The appellant being illiterate is not aware of the messages being received ... 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 518 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 3 Durga Srinivasarao Yadlapalli vs. ITO 4. Brief facts of the case

Pavan Kumar Gadia, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward 8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 624/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.624/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Pavan Kumar Gadia Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(1) Pan:Aakhp4026M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Suresh Babu Kn, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23/09/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y.207-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 129 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Explained The Reasons For The Delay In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Supported By An Affidavit Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Suresh Babu KN, Sr.AR

delay of 129 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has explained the reasons for the delay in the petition for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. Page 1 of 6 ITA No 624 of 2025 Pavan Kumar Gadia 2. We have heard ... learned Counsel for the assessee as well as the learned DR on condonation of delay. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit as under: Page 2 of 6 ITA No 624 of 2025 Pavan Kumar Gadia 3. Thus, it is clear that a very vague explanation

Sunku Surendra, Nellore vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nellore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being barred by limitation

ITA 1026/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1026/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Sunku Surendra Vs. Income Tax Officer Nellore Ward – 1 Pan:Aysps4353G Nellore (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Vvsc Muralidhar Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Suresh Babu Kn, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28/02/2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Tirupati, For The A.Y.2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 2235 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Supported By An Affidavit. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Was Suffering From Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri VVSC Muralidhar RaoFor Respondent: : Shri Suresh Babu KN, Sr.AR

A.Y.2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 2235 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee was suffering from Page ... also referred to the certificate issued by the Doctor. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee has not explained any reasonable cause for such an inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Further, the assessee admitted the discrepancies

Uthaan Foundation, Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 949/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.948 & 949/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019 & 2020-2021) Uthaan Foundation, Vs Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru C/O M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Co 7, C.R.Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700072 Pan No. :Aaatu 6596 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri S. Jhajharai, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed Both The Appeals Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 14.02.2025, Passed By The Ld.Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2020-2021. 2. The Ld.Ar Has Only Prayed That The Matter Be Remitted Back To The File Of Ld.Cit(A) As The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed The Order Not On Merit Rather He Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee On The Point Of Limitation By Not Condoning The Delay. Ld.Ar By Filing An Affidavit Has Explained The Reason For Delay & Submitted That The Reason Explained By The Assessee Is Plausible & Satisfactory & In The Interest Of Justice The Delay Should Be Condoned & Appeal Be Remitted Back To The File Of Cit(A) For Fresh Order On Merit. 3. Contrary To That, Ld.Sr. Dr Supported The Impugned Order Thereby Submitting That There Is A Long Delay As In One Case The Delay Was Of 1743 Explanation. 4. Upon Hearing The Submission Of The Counsel For The Respective Parties, We Have Perused The Orders Of The Lower Authorities In Both The Cases & Find That The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Dismissed As The Ld.Cit(A) Did Not Find The Reason For Delay Being Plausible & Satisfactory. Ld.Ar Has Filed An Affidavit Before Us Which Is Essential To Be Produced Hereinbelow :-

For Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 5

passed the order not on merit rather he dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the point of limitation by not condoning the delay. Ld.AR by filing an affidavit has explained the reason for delay and submitted that the reason explained by the assessee is plausible and satisfactory ... bona fides is imputable to the appellant." In N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy [1998 (7) SCC 123], this Court held: "It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only

Uthaan Foundation, Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 948/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.948 & 949/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019 & 2020-2021) Uthaan Foundation, Vs Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru C/O M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Co 7, C.R.Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700072 Pan No. :Aaatu 6596 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri S. Jhajharai, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed Both The Appeals Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 14.02.2025, Passed By The Ld.Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Mumbai For The Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2020-2021. 2. The Ld.Ar Has Only Prayed That The Matter Be Remitted Back To The File Of Ld.Cit(A) As The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed The Order Not On Merit Rather He Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee On The Point Of Limitation By Not Condoning The Delay. Ld.Ar By Filing An Affidavit Has Explained The Reason For Delay & Submitted That The Reason Explained By The Assessee Is Plausible & Satisfactory & In The Interest Of Justice The Delay Should Be Condoned & Appeal Be Remitted Back To The File Of Cit(A) For Fresh Order On Merit. 3. Contrary To That, Ld.Sr. Dr Supported The Impugned Order Thereby Submitting That There Is A Long Delay As In One Case The Delay Was Of 1743 Explanation. 4. Upon Hearing The Submission Of The Counsel For The Respective Parties, We Have Perused The Orders Of The Lower Authorities In Both The Cases & Find That The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Dismissed As The Ld.Cit(A) Did Not Find The Reason For Delay Being Plausible & Satisfactory. Ld.Ar Has Filed An Affidavit Before Us Which Is Essential To Be Produced Hereinbelow :-

For Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 5

passed the order not on merit rather he dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the point of limitation by not condoning the delay. Ld.AR by filing an affidavit has explained the reason for delay and submitted that the reason explained by the assessee is plausible and satisfactory ... bona fides is imputable to the appellant." In N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy [1998 (7) SCC 123], this Court held: "It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only

Raghav Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 677/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.677/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013) Raghav Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, Circle-9(1), Kolkata 4Th Floor, Room No.4D, 23/1, M.D.Road, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007 Pan No. :Aadcr 6456 K (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Instant Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.08.2023, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Filed Belatedly By 518 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein That The Ld.Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 09.08.2023 Has Passed An Order Ex-Parte, Since The Defects Mentioned In The Notice In Respect Of Appeal Memo Submitted In Form 35 Was Not Removed/Rectified, Thereby Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. Accordingly, There Had Been An Inordinate Delay In Submission Of The Appeal Before This Tribunal, Which Occurred Due To The Fact That The E-Portal Of The Income Tax Site Was Never Accessed By The Assessee. It Is Only Upon Going Through The Portal For Compilation Of The Status Of The Return Of Income

For Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

assessee has been filed belatedly by 518 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein that the ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 09.08.2023 has passed an order ex-parte, since the defects mentioned in the Notice in respect ... assessee may kindly be admitted for hearing. 4. Considering the submissions of the ld.AR and looking to the facts of the case, we condone the delay of 518 days and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 5. At the outset, ld.AR before us submitted that

M/S. Windamere Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Darjeeling vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1), Siliguri

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

ITA 1417/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1417/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) M/S Windamere Hotel Pvt. Ltd Vs Acit Cirlce-3(1), Siliguri C/O:M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Co 7, C.R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700072 Pan No. :Aaacw 2667 C (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia & Sujay Sen, Ars रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Instant Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.03.2024, Passed By The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Gurugram, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Filed Belatedly By 395 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein That The Person Who Was Looking After The Taxation Affairs Of The Assessee Company Was Not Keeping Well & Was Not Attending The Office Regularly & Ultimately, He Tendered His Resignation & Left The Service & The Management Of The Assessee Company Was Not Intimated About The Receipt Of Such Notices. When It Came To The Knowledge Of The Management, Immediately The Appeal Has Been Filed Before The Tribunal Having A Delay Of 395 Days. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Delay Was Not Intentional And, Therefore

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia & Sujay Sen, ArsFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

assessee has been filed belatedly by 395 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein that the person who was looking after the taxation affairs of the assessee company was not keeping well and was not attending the office ... assessee may kindly be admitted for hearing. 3. Considering the submissions of the ld.AR and looking to the facts of the case, we condone the delay of 395 days and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. Ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

Ashrama Praktan Chhatra Sangha, Narendrapur vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result, both appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1390/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1389 & 1390/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :Na) Ashrama Praktan Chhatra Vs The Cit(Exemption), Kolkata Sangha, At & Post : Narendrapur, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal-700103 Pan No. :Aaata 8002 A (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri P.K.Ray & Trideep Nayak Ars रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

appeals of the assessee are barred by 122 days each. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein the sufficient reasons for condonation of delay to which ld.Sr. DR did not object. Considering the submissions of the ld.AR and looking ... facts of the case, we condone the delay of 122 days each in both the appeals and both appeals of the assessee are admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(E) has erred in law in not having properly appreciate the replies

Ashrama Praktan Chhatra Sangha, Narendrapur vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result, both appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1389/KOL/2025[---]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1389 & 1390/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :Na) Ashrama Praktan Chhatra Vs The Cit(Exemption), Kolkata Sangha, At & Post : Narendrapur, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal-700103 Pan No. :Aaata 8002 A (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri P.K.Ray & Trideep Nayak Ars रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

appeals of the assessee are barred by 122 days each. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein the sufficient reasons for condonation of delay to which ld.Sr. DR did not object. Considering the submissions of the ld.AR and looking ... facts of the case, we condone the delay of 122 days each in both the appeals and both appeals of the assessee are admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(E) has erred in law in not having properly appreciate the replies

Marappa Gounder Krishnasamy, Namakkal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Namakkal

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

ITA 1775/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1775/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Marappa Gounder Krishnasamy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 64, Tiruchengode Road, Ward 1, Namakkal 637 001. Namakkal. [Pan:Aeypk1121L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Marimuthu, Itp ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.09.2024 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-12, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 201 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons In Support Of An Affidavit. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, I Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really Prevented In Filing The Appeal In Time. Thus, The Delay Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri K. Marimuthu, ITPFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 148Section 44A

Mumbai for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. This appeal is filed with a delay of 201 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay stating the reasons in support of an affidavit. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, I find the reasons