← 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

Gurugnanasambandar Mission, Mayiladuthurai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Trichy

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

ITA 1674/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1674/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gurugnanasambandar Mission Income Tax Officer, Dharmapuram Adhinam, Vs. Exemptions Ward. Dharmapuram, Trichy. Mayiladuthurai – 609 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aactg-1020-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. R. Sumedha, Advocate For Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: Ms. R. Sumedha, Advocate for Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 12ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 45(3)Section 68Section 69A

outset, we find that there is a delay of 70 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 temple though obtained registration u/s.12AA, it did not file any return

Arulmigu Kurungaleeswarar and Vaigundavasa Perumal Thirukoil, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-3, Chennai

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

ITA 1673/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1673/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Arulmigu Kurungaleeswarar & Income Tax Officer, Vaigundavasa Perumal Thirukoil, Vs. Exemptions Ward 3, Koyambedu. Chennai. Chennai – 600 107. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aadta-2178-C] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. R. Sumedha, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Ms. R. Sumedha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl.CIT
Section 12ASection 144Section 147Section 45(3)

outset, we find that there is a delay of 282 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 the temple though obtained registration u/s.12AA, it did not file any return

T.Abdul Wahid and Company, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc0491), Chennai

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

ITA 1672/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 T. Abdul Wahid & Company, Assistant Commissioner Of No.55/27, Vepery High Road, Vs. Income Tax, Periamet, Chennai – 600 003. Non-Corporate Circle – 4(1). Tamil Nadu. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaft-0482-B] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Raghav Rajeev Menon, Advocate (Virtual) प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: Mr. Raghav Rajeev Menon, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

outset, we find that there is a delay of 252 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 due to the halt in operation of business during COVID-19, the Company

The Dharapuram Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, Tirupur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4) Tirupur, Tirupur

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

ITA 1671/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1671/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Dharapuram Agricultural Producers Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, Ward 2(4), New No. 487, Old No. 280, Tirupur. Chinnakadai Street, Opp. Arasamaram Stop, Dharapuram, Tiruppur 638 702. [Pan:Aabat8601Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Ca (Virtual) ""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 13.03.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Visakhapatnam For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 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

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)

year 2020-21. 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, 2 I.T.A. No.1671/Chny/25 we find the reasons stated ... only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. At the outset, the ld. AR Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CA submits

Urmila Kurariya (L/H of Late Shri Ganga Prasad Kurariya), Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jabalpur

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

ITA 69/JAB/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)

been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal ... hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal I.T.A. No.69/JAB/2025 Assessment Year:2010-11 2 before

Saurabh Jain, Sagar vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Sagar

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

ITA 42/JAB/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)Section 253(3)

been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal ... learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s I.T.A. No.42/JAB/2025 Assessment Year:2012-13 2 application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay

Mahesh Chaurasiya, Ward No vs. ITO, Tikamgarh

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

ITA 15/JAB/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 253(3)

been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal ... learned Sr. Departmental I.T.A. No.15/JAB/2025 Assessment Year:2014-15 2 Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay

Suman Jain, Sagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Sagar

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

ITA 99/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee submitted that the assessee was not provided reasonable opportunity during assessment proceedings. He further submitted that the learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing of appeal, although there was sufficient cause for delay. He requested that the delay in filing of appeal in the office ... matter to the discretion of the Bench. Both sides were heard. Materials available on record were perused. The assessee’s application for condonation of delay was not considered favourably by learned CIT(A). From the records, it is evident that there was sufficient cause, within the meaning of section

Bala Prasad Patel, Chhatarpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Chhatarpur

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

ITA 139/JAB/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)

been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the I.T.A. No.139/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2011-12 2 delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee ... admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay

Honavar Agricultural Produce Co-Operative Marketing Society Limited, Honavar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Karwar

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

ITA 81/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member), SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)

Tribunal and the 2 ITA. No..81/PAN/2025 Honavar Agricultural Produce Cooperative Marketing Society Limited. assesse has filed 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 appeal

Govind Jee, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward -1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1040/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia,CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 69A

separate explanation, affidavit or petition was filed either in writing or through the portal, setting out the reasons for delay and seeking condonation of delay. The ld. CIT(A) observed as under:- ‘’4. The issue of delay in filing appeal and decision thereon: (i) It is noted from the records ... with a delay of approximately 9 months. As per Column No. 15 of Form 35 submitted online, the appellant has stated. "Grounds for condonation of delay will be submitted at the time of hearing." (ii) However, despite the passage of considerable time since the filing of the appeal, no separate

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Ab Alcobev Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross

ITA 360/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.356, 357, 358 & 360/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / A.Y. : 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. Vs Ab Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., 154, 1St Floor, Aggarwal Plaza-1, Anandvas Shakurpur, North West, Delhi. अपीलार्थी/Appellant स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aalca0327J प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent & C.O. Nos.17 To 20/Chd/2025 In

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

other words, the approval is a mechanical approval and hence, assessment orders are not sustainable. 5. The assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay in all these four Cross Objections. In its application, it has been pleaded that their Tax Consultant Shri Avinash Jain was of the view that ... also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the 1d. 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Ab Alcobev Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross

ITA 358/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.356, 357, 358 & 360/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / A.Y. : 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. Vs Ab Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., 154, 1St Floor, Aggarwal Plaza-1, Anandvas Shakurpur, North West, Delhi. अपीलार्थी/Appellant स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aalca0327J प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent & C.O. Nos.17 To 20/Chd/2025 In

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

other words, the approval is a mechanical approval and hence, assessment orders are not sustainable. 5. The assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay in all these four Cross Objections. In its application, it has been pleaded that their Tax Consultant Shri Avinash Jain was of the view that ... also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the 1d. 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Ab Alcobev Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross

ITA 357/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.356, 357, 358 & 360/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / A.Y. : 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. Vs Ab Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., 154, 1St Floor, Aggarwal Plaza-1, Anandvas Shakurpur, North West, Delhi. अपीलार्थी/Appellant स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aalca0327J प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent & C.O. Nos.17 To 20/Chd/2025 In

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

other words, the approval is a mechanical approval and hence, assessment orders are not sustainable. 5. The assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay in all these four Cross Objections. In its application, it has been pleaded that their Tax Consultant Shri Avinash Jain was of the view that ... also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the 1d. 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2 Ludhiana, Ludhiana vs. Ab Alcobev Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross

ITA 356/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.356, 357, 358 & 360/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / A.Y. : 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. Vs Ab Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., 154, 1St Floor, Aggarwal Plaza-1, Anandvas Shakurpur, North West, Delhi. अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aalca0327J & C.O. Nos.17 To 20/Chd/2025 In

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

other words, the approval is a mechanical approval and hence, assessment orders are not sustainable. 5. The assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay in all these four Cross Objections. In its application, it has been pleaded that their Tax Consultant Shri Avinash Jain was of the view that ... also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the 1d. 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

Pandaveswar Colliery Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Pandaveswar vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as

ITA 287/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

fairly submitted that the assessee had already filed application u/s 119(2)(b) before the Id. Pr. CIT(Asansol) along with petition for condonation of delay in filing return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 and audited report so that the assessee may be allowed to claim deduction

Girish Kishanlal Sharma, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 34(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1405/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2016-17 Girish Kshanlal Sharma Ito, Ward-34(1), Kolkata Vs Room No.218, Old China Bazaar Street, Kol-1. (Pan: Ansps3752Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, Sr. DR- JCIT

revenue. 3. The appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 210 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 Girish Kshanlal Sharma the appeal is hereby condoned

The Northern Zone Railway Emp.Co Op Thrift and Credit Society Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-52(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2241/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year : 2016-17] The Northern Zone Railway Emp. Vs Ito, Co Op Thrift & Credit Society Ward-53(1), Ltd., Northern Railway Head New Delhi. Quarter, Baroda House, K.G.Marg, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaatt7871J Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

facilities to its members. 3. At the outset, it can be observed that there is delay in filing the appeals for which application condonation of delay is filed on the basis that the earlier Chief Executive Officer has given his personal e-mail and he had retired and New Chief

The Northern Zone Railway Emp. Co Op Thrift and Credit Society Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-52(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2240/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year : 2016-17] The Northern Zone Railway Emp. Vs Ito, Co Op Thrift & Credit Society Ward-53(1), Ltd., Northern Railway Head New Delhi. Quarter, Baroda House, K.G.Marg, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaatt7871J Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

facilities to its members. 3. At the outset, it can be observed that there is delay in filing the appeals for which application condonation of delay is filed on the basis that the earlier Chief Executive Officer has given his personal e-mail and he had retired and New Chief

The Northern Zone Railway Emp. Co Op Thrift and Credit Society Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-53(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2239/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year : 2016-17] The Northern Zone Railway Emp. Vs Ito, Co Op Thrift & Credit Society Ward-53(1), Ltd., Northern Railway Head New Delhi. Quarter, Baroda House, K.G.Marg, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaatt7871J Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

facilities to its members. 3. At the outset, it can be observed that there is delay in filing the appeals for which application condonation of delay is filed on the basis that the earlier Chief Executive Officer has given his personal e-mail and he had retired and New Chief