← 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

Kannammal Educational Trust, Chennai vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)-III, Nugambakkam, Chennai

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

ITA 1642/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1642/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Kannammal Educational Trust, Vs. The Deputy Director Of 30, Dr. Ramasamy Road, K.K. Nagar, Income Tax (Exemptions) Iii, Chennai 600 078. Chennai. [Pan:Aaatk7675B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""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 01.02.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Adjournment Petition Filed By The Assessee. The Notice Of Hearing Issued By The Registry Of This Tribunal Returned Unserved With An Endorsement “No Such Person”. Moreover, No Change Of Address, If Any, Filed Along With Appeal Memo. Hence, The 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT

after hearing the ld. DR. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 766 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay and the contents are reproduced as under: That the Attorney/Advocate of the assessee trust Mr. S.M. Chokkalingam could not file the Memorandum of appeal ... assessee miserably failed to show sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Thus, the affidavit filed for 3 I.T.A. No.1642/Chny/25 condonation of delay of 776 days stands rejected and accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable. 6. In the result, the appeal

Kalyanasundaram Ranjithkumar, Thiruvarur vs. ITO, Ncw-22(6), Tambaram

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

ITA 1622/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1622/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kalyanasundaram Ranjithkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 2/46A, Keela Padugai Po, Non Corporate Ward 22(6), Thiruvarur 610 109. Tambaram. [Pan:Aimpr1914L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 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 06.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 489 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 2

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 10Section 17(3)Section 89

Delhi for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. This appeal is filed with a delay of 489 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

Gomathi, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp. Ward 9(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1504/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1504/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19 Gomathi, Dcit, No. 13/51, Kongu Salai, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 9(1). Egmore, Chennai. Chennai –600 008. [Pan:Asmpg-0601-K] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. Pradeep, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: Mr. Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24

outset, we find that there is a delay of 29 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons. The assessee submitted an affidavit for the delay stating that the delay is due to genuine confusion arising from the contradictory conclusions recorded

K.1316 Muthur Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Tirupur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4) Tirupur, Tirupur

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

ITA 1497/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed without considering the fact that the assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the Return of Income (RoI) K 1316 Muthur Primary Agricultural – Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. :: 2 :: is pending before the competent ... hand, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee didn’t bring to the notice of the first appellate authority that it had filed for condonation of delay for belated filing of return before the Ld.CCIT, and therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order rejecting the section 80P claim

Geetha Mahadev Gowda, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 547/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 250Section 253(5)

filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The ld. A.R. of the assessee drew our attention to an application filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC mentioning the reasons for the delay which are as follows: Smt. Geetha Mahadev Gowda ... /NFAC following the various judicial pronouncements & considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, did not condone the delay. Moreover, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC also Smt. Geetha Mahadev Gowda, Bangalore Page 3 of 8 dismissed the appeal on merits as the assessee did not submit

K N Dileep, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramnagar

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

ITA 1346/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri Vijay Simha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 250Section 253(5)

days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. of the assessee drew our attention to an affidavit filed for condonation for delay mentioning the reasons for the delay which are reproduced below for ease of reference & convenience: K.N. Dileep, Bangalore Page 3 of 11 K.N. Dileep, Bangalore ... prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Apex Court, if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalize injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Therefore, this

Worthwhile Future Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4190/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Nirav ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT- DR
Section 12ASection 253Section 253(5)Section 80G

been filed with inordinate delay of more than 2 and half years and 2 years respectively. 3. We have considered rival contentions on condonation of delay. 4. Assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. In sum and substance, the assessee has stated that ... faithfully, For ABNJ & Co. (Chartered Accountants) JAY JAYANT DEDHIA CA Jay Dedhia” 5. Learned Departmental Representative has furnished objection dated 25.08.2025 vehemently opposing condonation of delay. 6. As could be seen from the letter of Shri Jay Dedhia, CA reproduced above, he has clearly and categorically stated that except statutory

Worthwhile Future Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem. Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4189/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Nirav ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT- DR
Section 12ASection 253Section 253(5)Section 80G

been filed with inordinate delay of more than 2 and half years and 2 years respectively. 3. We have considered rival contentions on condonation of delay. 4. Assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. In sum and substance, the assessee has stated that ... faithfully, For ABNJ & Co. (Chartered Accountants) JAY JAYANT DEDHIA CA Jay Dedhia” 5. Learned Departmental Representative has furnished objection dated 25.08.2025 vehemently opposing condonation of delay. 6. As could be seen from the letter of Shri Jay Dedhia, CA reproduced above, he has clearly and categorically stated that except statutory

Sangeeta Madhusudan Bhusrath, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 3496/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeesangeetha Madhusudan Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(3)(1), Bhusrath, Mumbai Kalphavruksh Heights, 502, C Piramal Chamber, Dr S.S. Rao Marg, Wing, 5Th Floor, Near Lalgi Pada Parel, Mumbai Police Station, Kandivali Link Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Alopb2682E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Laxman SutharFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 144Section 250

Registry has reported that the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 729 days. The assessee has moved a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit dated 31.08.2025, which is placed in the paper book at APB pages 3 to 14. In the said affidavit

Shri Bhagwan Rishabdev Charitable Trust, Delhi vs. ITO, Trust Ward(Exemptions)-2(1), Delhi

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 287/DEL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2025

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)

brought on record duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules. 4. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. The reasons for delay in filing appeal stated by the assessee seem to be reasonable. Accordingly, we condone the delay. 5. At the very

Shri Bhagwan Rishabdev Charitable Trust, Delhi vs. ITO, Trust Ward(Exemptions)-2(1), Delhi

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 286/DEL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2025

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)

brought on record duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules. 4. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. The reasons for delay in filing appeal stated by the assessee seem to be reasonable. Accordingly, we condone the delay. 5. At the very

Vinod Kumar, Firozabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(2), Firozabad

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

ITA 236/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144

dated 26.12.2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At the time of hearing, it is noticed that the assessee has filed the condonation of delay application dated 29.04.2025 and it is mentioned in the said application that the appeal could not be filed within the time because the assessee ... that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 3. I have heard the ld. DR of the Revenue and gone through the condonation of delay application filed by the assessee. In my considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, I condone

Vijay Chanabasayya Vastrad, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5, Belagavi

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

ITA 174/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.174/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vijay Channabasayya Vastrad, Vs Ito-Ward-5, Mahantesh Nagar, Civil Hospital Road, . Near Nagappa Temple, Belagavi-590001. Ramdurg, Karnataka. Belagavi-591123, Karnataka. Pan/Gir No.Akvpv1915G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 144

before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed an 2 ITA. No.174/PAN/2025 Vijay channabasayya vastrad.. application and the affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit

The Karnataka Multipurpose Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Chikodi vs. E Assessment, Nipnai

ITA 122/PAN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 122/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Karnataka Multipurpose Souharda Sahakari Niyamit. Bhagyalaxmi Nagar, Chikodi, Belgavi-591201. Pan : Aaaat4824A . . . . . . . Appellant V/S National Faceless E-Asstt Centre, Delhi . . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Chetan Chougule [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/09/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1057730634(1) Dt. 06/11/2023 Passed By Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Coimbatore, [‘Ld. Nfac’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Rectification Order Dt. 28/05/2021 Passed U/S 154 Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru [‘Ld. Cpc’] Anent To Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr Chetan Chougule [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(3)

Niyamit. Vs NFeAC ITA Nos.122/PAN/2025 AY: 2018-19 2. The present appeal is time barred by 483 days. The appellant’s application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit dt. 03/05/2025 whereby reasons in not filing appeal within time allowed u/s 253(3) of the Act are explained ... Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)], thus requiring us to condone the delay in the larger interest of justice. In view thereof the undeliberate delay occurred in instituting present appeal by the appellant assessee, after placing reliance on former judicial

The Chimna Agri. Ser Vice Society Ltd., Punjab vs. Jao Income Tax Officer, ITO, Ward-1, Jagraon, Punjab

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 423/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 422/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 423/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Chimna Co-Op. Agri. Jao. बनाम Service Society Ltd., Income Tax Officer Vpo Chimna, Jagraon, Ward 1, Vs. Ludhiana. 141011 Jagraon "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaaat4706D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Kushal Chopra, C.A. (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09-2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri. Kushal Chopra, C.A. (virtual)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

facts has erred in not admitting the appeal of the appellant and has also erred in rejecting the appellant’s application for condonation of delay, as filed before him at para No 15 of Form No. 35, in a summary and arbitrary manner without appreciating and rebutting the reasons stated ... application for condonation of delay in a judicious manner. 3. Notwithstanding the above grounds of appeal, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant is operating as a co- operating society in a very small village having population less than 2000 and it does not have a technical

The Chimna Co-Op Agri. Service Society Ltd., Punjab vs. Jao the Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jagraon, Punjab

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 422/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 422/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 423/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Chimna Co-Op. Agri. Jao. बनाम Service Society Ltd., Income Tax Officer Vpo Chimna, Jagraon, Ward 1, Vs. Ludhiana. 141011 Jagraon "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaaat4706D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Kushal Chopra, C.A. (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09-2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri. Kushal Chopra, C.A. (virtual)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

facts has erred in not admitting the appeal of the appellant and has also erred in rejecting the appellant’s application for condonation of delay, as filed before him at para No 15 of Form No. 35, in a summary and arbitrary manner without appreciating and rebutting the reasons stated ... application for condonation of delay in a judicious manner. 3. Notwithstanding the above grounds of appeal, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant is operating as a co- operating society in a very small village having population less than 2000 and it does not have a technical

Yuva Gayatri Pariwar Trust, Anand vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 581/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Shri Pramesh B. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-D.R
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

order dated 23-10-2024 passed by the CIT(E), the applicant/assessee filed present appeal belatedly for 78 days. The applicant filed condonation of delay thereby stating that the assessee has undergone knee surgery during the period and therefore could not respond to the order

Dhara Developers, Shree Vishnudhara Homes vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(1), Income Tax Office, Vejalpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1833/AHD/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT. DR
Section 250Section 92C

application was filed before us seeking adjournment. Further, the assessee’s appeal is delayed in filing by 23 days and no application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee before us. Moreover, we have also noted that on the previous two occasions when the matter came

Yashwant Educational Services, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1630/PUN/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT-DR
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

informed that there is a delay of 341 days and 129 days in the filing the present appeals. Affidavit along with application for condonation of delay stands filed. After hearing both the sides, we observe that assessee-trust is 2 ITA.Nos.1629 & 1630/PUN./2025 (Centre for Action Research and Education ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), we condone the delay of 341 days and 129 days in filing of the instant appeals before this Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. When the cases called for hearing, none appeared

Yashwant Educational Services, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1629/PUN/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT-DR
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

informed that there is a delay of 341 days and 129 days in the filing the present appeals. Affidavit along with application for condonation of delay stands filed. After hearing both the sides, we observe that assessee-trust is 2 ITA.Nos.1629 & 1630/PUN./2025 (Centre for Action Research and Education ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), we condone the delay of 341 days and 129 days in filing of the instant appeals before this Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. When the cases called for hearing, none appeared