← 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

Naba Utkal Trust, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Bhubaneswar

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 268/CTK/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Am आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.268/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-2022) Naba Utkal Trust, Vs Ito, Exemption, Bhubaneswar Plot No.841, Keshab Complex, Cuttack Road, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No. : Aabtn 0126 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order, Dated 28.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), Panaji, For The Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 60 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein That The Delay Of 60 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Due To Lack Of Knowledge About The Order Passed By The Ld.Pcit. Accordingly, The Assessee Prayed That The Delay Of 60 Days May Kindly Be Condoned & Appeal Of The Assessee May Kindly Be Admitted For Hearing. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Raise Any Objection To This Contention Of The Assessee For Condonation Of Delay. Accordingly, We Are Of The View That The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11(2)Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)

appeal of the assessee is barred by 60 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein that the delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal is due to lack of knowledge about the order passed ... assessee may kindly be admitted for hearing. Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection to this contention of the assessee for condonation of delay. Accordingly, we are of the view that the assessee 2 has stated the sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, therefore, condoned the delay

Kuldeep Kaur, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambala, Haryana

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 297/CHANDI/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR for Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

served on 01.02.2025. Immediately thereafter, steps were taken for filing the present appeal. 3. The Ld. DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay. 4. Considering these facts, and keeping in mind the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji ... satisfied that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal in time. Refusing to condone the delay would defeat substantial justice. 2 Accordingly, the delay of 272 days is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 5. The case of the assessee

Pawan Gupta, Parwanoo, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo, Himachal Pradesh

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 912/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

accordingly, the returned loss of Rs.56.12 Lacs was reduced to Rs.24.95 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of condonation of delay. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has prayed for adjudication of appeal on merits which has been opposed

M/S Valco Industries Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT-CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/CHANDI/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 125/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 Valco Industries Ltd., Vs The Dcit, Sco 37, Sector 26, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacv5195J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Monga, Ca Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Monga, CA
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

served upon the assessee. But, inspite of two communications, nothing has been supplied to the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay also. In this application, it has pleaded that the impugned order of the CIT (Appeals) was never served upon the assessee. It was only ... used A.Y.2004-05 3 identically in sub-section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction

Shankutlaben Patel, Petlad vs. NFAC, Delhi, the ITO, Ward-1, Anand

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1050/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M J Shah, AR & Shri Rushin Patel ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 69A

Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 31.10.2023 passed for A.Y. 2013-14. Condonation of Delay: 2. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 499 days in filing the present appeal. In support of the application ... condonation of delay, the assessee has filed an Affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. It is stated in the said Affidavit that the assessee is a senior citizen, is uneducated, and resides in a small village, having no knowledge of Income Shankutlaben Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year

Manubhai Babalbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 605/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 69A

appeal during the course of hearing.” Manubhai Babalbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2016-17 - 2– 3. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay of 133 days in filing of the present appeal. The assessee submitted that the delay was due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances ... delay is satisfactorily explained. Further, we are of the considered view that no perceptible prejudice would be caused to the Revenue by condoning the delay, whereas the assessee would suffer irreparable loss if the appeal is rejected without examination on merits, since substantial additions have been made in the hands

Mithlesh Ashok Thukral, Pune vs. ITO Ward 13(4), Pune

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

ITA 840/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 249Section 250

have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal by 249 days and thereby dismissing the same. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee ... However, the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) on 22.02.2025. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay. However, the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was no sufficient

Jeevashrey Foundation, Nashik vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1647/PUN/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Sept 2025AY 2026-27

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1647/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2026-2027 Vs Cit Exemption, Pune Jeevashrey Foundation, Krupashankar Dube, Ghar No. 42/1873/3/5/116/10 Trimurti Chowk, Gajlaxmi Row No. 3, Indr Nagari, Ambad Link Road, Nashik- 422008 Maharashtra Pan-Aaetj4383R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde-CIT
Section 12A

Pune. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 101 days in filing of the instant appeal. Application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit has been filed. We have heard both the sides. We find that the main cause of delay is due to the illness ... Supreme Court) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382) condone the delay of 101 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Sole grievance of the assessee is that Ld. CIT(E) erred in not granting registration u/s 12AB

Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 887/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Ito, Ward-23(1), Hooghly Unnayan Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 153ASection 80Section 80P

revenue. 3. The appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 967 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. The reasons in the application are plausible and valid. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose

ACIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Saumya Lantech Drilling Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 203/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Central Circle-4(3), Saumya Lantech Drilling Kolkata Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bj-311, Sector Ii, Salt Lake North 24 Pgs, Kol – 700091. (Pan: Aancs7052C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sonu Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 40

revenue. 3. The appeal has been filed by the revenue with a delay of 24 days. The revenue has filed an application for condonation of delay. The reasons in the application are plausible and valid. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose

Shree Riddhi Siddhi Wines Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 13(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1384/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Riddhi Siddhi Wines Ito, Ward-13(4), Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. Vs P-3A, Dobson Lane, Howrah, W.B – 711101. (Pan: Aalcs2941N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

revenue. 3. The appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 635 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. The reasons in the affidavit are plausible and valid. Consequently, the delay Shree Riddhi Siddhi Wines Pvt. Ltd. in filing the appeal is hereby

Saha Medi Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1118/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.1117 & 1118/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Saha Medi Services Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-1(1), Kolkata Vs 92A, C R Avenue, 2Nd Floor, Room No.1, Kol – 700012. (Pan: Aaocs9840D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 270A

Both the appeals have been filed by the assessee with a delay of 265 days. The assessee has filed separate applications for condonation of delays. The reasons in the applications are plausible and valid. Consequently, the delays in filing both the appeal are hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose

Saha Medi Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1117/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita Nos.1117 & 1118/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Saha Medi Services Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-1(1), Kolkata Vs 92A, C R Avenue, 2Nd Floor, Room No.1, Kol – 700012. (Pan: Aaocs9840D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 270A

Both the appeals have been filed by the assessee with a delay of 265 days. The assessee has filed separate applications for condonation of delays. The reasons in the applications are plausible and valid. Consequently, the delays in filing both the appeal are hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose

Santosh Kumar Ghosh, Nadia vs. ACIT, Circle 41, Nadia

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

ITA 1048/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Santosh Kumar Ghosh Acit, Circle-41, Nadia Vs Gnpc Road, Ranaghat, Nadia, W.B – 741201. (Pan: Aeapg7710H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

revenue. 3. The appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 76 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. The reasons in the affidavit are plausible and valid. Consequently, the delay in filing Santosh Kumar Ghosh the appeal is hereby condoned

Rahul Springs Private Limited, Panagarh vs. Circle 1, Durgapur

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

ITA 1039/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Rahul Springs Pvt. Ltd. Ao, Circle-1, Durgapur

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 195 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. The reasons in the application are plausible and valid. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose off the appeal

Zenith Public School, Namakkal vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Salem

ITA 31/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Section 11Section 12A

outset, we find that there is a delay of 67 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 assessee trust's Managing Trustee that the delay occurred

Arumugam Ravichandran, Karur vs. Assessing Officer Ward 1 Karur, Karur

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

ITA 1685/CHNY/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1685/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arumugam Ravichandran Ito 16-B, Chinnandan Koil Street Vs. Ward 1 Karur – 639 104. Karur. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Azapr-2571-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. V. Alagappan, Ca (Virtual) प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Mr. V. Alagappan, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 69A

outset, we find that there is a delay of 103 days in appeal filed 2. by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons. The assessee submitted an affidavit for the delay stating that due to unawareness of such order passed by CIT(A). The Order

Shri Sai Energy & Infra India Pvt. Ltd., Tirupur vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1684/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1684/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Sai Energy & Infra India Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Vs. Corporate Ward-2 2/533, Udumalai Main Road, Coimbatore. P Vadugapalayam, Palladam Tirupur – 641 664. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aawcs-6651-G] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Suraj Nahar, Ca. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit.

For Appellant: Mr. Suraj Nahar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 144Section 194CSection 69A

outset, we find that there is a delay of 193 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 was not aware of the notices sent and became aware

Arulmigu Devi Karumariamman Thirukoil, Chennai vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Chennai

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

ITA 1678/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1678/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Arulmigu Devi Karumariamman Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Thirukoil, Karumanriamman Thirukoil, Income Tax (Exemptions), Sannathi Street, Thiruverkadu 600 077, Chennai. Chennai. [Pan:Aadta3737H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. V. Krishnan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.04.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Raised 10 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer By 2

For Appellant: Shri N. V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

justified in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer by 2 I.T.A. No.1678/Chny/25 dismissing the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. At the outset, the ld. AR Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate submits that ... impugned order, we note that in para 2.1 of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) reproduced the 4 I.T.A. No.1678/Chny/25 reasons for condonation of delay. The ld. AR drew our attention to page 7 of the paper book being screenshot from the portal with respect to the response filed

Ponnusamy Raja, Vakkil New Street, Madurai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 1(7), Madurai, Income Tax Office, Cr Building

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

ITA 1677/CHNY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1677/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ponnusamy Raja, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 176-A, 3Rd Floor, Vakkil New Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(7), Simmakal, Madurai 625 001. Madurai. [Pan:Agepr6307F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 9 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 Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 36(1)(ii)Section 44A

year 2018-19. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 9 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 find the reasons stated by the assessee