← 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

Sandhya Vitthalrao Dabre, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 322/NAG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Mugdha Gangane, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. CIT D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

delay of 412 days. The Assessee has also filed duly sworn affidavit along with medical documents in respect of her claim qua condonation of delay. The Assessee in respect of her claim has also filed copy of the police complaint and the diploma certificate qua professional beautician diploma (4 months ... medical documents. This Court by giving thoughtful consideration to the reasons for delay and considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances qua condonation of delay and the documents, is inclined to condone the delay. Thus, the delay is condoned. 4. Coming to the merits of the case it is observed

Girad Gramin Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Wardha vs. ITO Ward-1, Wardha

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 34Section 80P

contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee. 4. Having given thoughtful considerations to the contentions raised by the Assessee qua condonation of delay and the objection raised by the Ld. D.R., this Court is of the considered opinion that the reason for delay of 124 days

Bharath Yuva Sankshema Sangham, Eluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Eluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 160/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 160/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Bharath Yuva Sankshema Sangham V. Income Tax Officer 20B-7-21/1 Income Tax Office C/O. Ayyappa Medicals Eluru, West Godavari Andhra Pradesh Gandhi Nagar, Eluru West Godavari District – 534002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aidpg1046K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: “1. Assessee was served with order passed ... reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 19 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 19 Page No. 2 Bharath Yuva Sankshema Sangham days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits

Satya Tulasi Donepalli, Korukonda vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 3, Aayakar Bhavan, Near Kambala Tank

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

ITA 13/VIZ/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Aug 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.13/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2011-12) Vs. Satya Tulasi Donepalli Income Tax Officer-Ward-3 Rajahmundry Sri Parvathi Parameswara Oil Agency Main Road, Korukonda East Godavari District – 533289 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Avtpd0908N] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 246ASection 264

filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition, which is as under: - “2. That I had represented the appellant, Smt. Donepalli Satya Tulasi, during ... appeal. 6. That this Affidavit is executed to place the above facts on record and seek interference of this Hon'ble Tribunal for condoning the delay.” Page. No 2 I.T.A.No. 13/VIZ/2025 Satya Tulasi Donepalli 3. In view of the above reasons, Ld.AR prayed to condone the delay as the assessee

Gyan Prakash Tiwari, Rajgarh vs. ITO, Shajapur

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 563/IND/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manish Boradgyan Prakash Tiwari, Income Tax Officer, Talab Mohalla Chhapiheda, Shajapur Vs. Rajgarh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abupt8470C Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Nerkar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Officer, Shajapur. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 81 days in filing of the instant appeal. Application for condonation of delay along with affidavit have been placed on record. Considering the reason that during the relevant period the assessee has shifted his Gyan Prakash Tiwari ... another case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Amantnag & Anr, V/s Mst. Katiji & Ors reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107, I hereby condone the delay of 81 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The sole grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming

Kobsai Hospitallities Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Lucknow

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

ITA 291/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69

legal advisor, stands nothing to gain by not filing the appeal in time, the CIT(A), NFAC, was not justified in not condoning the delay, the order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, be set aside. 03. Because the entire proceedings-initiated u/s.148 are devoid of material or reasons, there ... notices. Had the assessee been informed, it could have submitted all the details to the ld. AO. It, therefore, requested permission for condonation of delay in filing the appeal on this count and also requested permission to furnish the necessary evidences to prove that the investment in the property

Kobsai Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Lucknow

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

ITA 290/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69

legal advisor, stands nothing to gain by not filing the appeal in time, the CIT(A), NFAC, was not justified in not condoning the delay, the order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, be set aside. 03. Because the entire proceedings-initiated u/s.148 are devoid of material or reasons, there ... notices. Had the assessee been informed, it could have submitted all the details to the ld. AO. It, therefore, requested permission for condonation of delay in filing the appeal on this count and also requested permission to furnish the necessary evidences to prove that the investment in the property

Shobha Yadav, Chandpura Bachhana, Bilhaur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Knp-W

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

ITA 278/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2019-20 Shobha Yadav, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Chandpura Bachhana, Bilhaur, (Appeals), Kanpur Kanpur Nagar, U.P.-209202 Pan:Auxpy6004H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shivam Singh Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.02.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A)) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal On The Ground Of Delay In Filling Of The Appeal By 33 Days, Without Appreciating The Bona Fide Reasons & Genuine Hardship Faced By The Appellant. 2. That The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Is An Illiterate Village Woman With No Access Or Understanding Of Technology & That She Neither Received The Notice Nor The Assessment Order In Physical Form, Leading To Unintentional Delay In Filing The Appeal. 3. That The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Consider That The Appellant'S Cause For Delay Was Neither Deliberate Nor Due To Negligence, But Solely Due To Lack Of Awareness & Therefore Deserved Liberal Construction In The Interest Of Substantial Justice. 4. That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Appellant Did Not Show "Sufficient Cause" For Condonation Of Delay, Despite Her Candid Declaration Of Illiteracy, Lack Of Access To Email & Absence Of Physical Service Of Notices Circumstances Beyond Her Control.

For Appellant: Sh. Shivam Singh Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

interest of substantial justice. 4. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant did not show "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay, despite her candid declaration of illiteracy, lack of access to email, and absence of physical service of notices circumstances beyond her control ... business account, and no such unexplained cash was deposited during the relevant year. 9. That the impugned order passed by CIT(A) without condoning the delay has resulted in denial of fair opportunity and violation of principles of natural justice, thereby rendering the appellate proceedings defective. 10. That the appellant

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kanpur vs. M.K.U Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 509/LKW/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

cross objection is delayed by 99 days. The assessee has filed an application and an affidavit in support of such application for the condonation of delay. It has been submitted that after the receipt of notice of the hearing of appeal filed by the Revenue, the assessee had approached ... Lucknow. This factor caused delay in filing the cross objection and it was submitted that the same was a reasonable cause to condone the delay for the same. After considering the circumstances enumerated in the 2 CO No.23/LKW/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 M.K.U. Pvt. Ltd. assessee’s condonation petition and affidavit

Asif Nazir Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(4), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 986/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)

with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Condonation of Delay : 8. There was a delay in filing Appeals before this Tribunal. Assessee has stated that he was not well versed with technology and income ... Assessee explaining the reason for delay. We are convinced that there was ‘reasonable cause’ on the part of Assessee and therefore we condone the delay. 9. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th August

Asif Najir Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(4) Pune, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 985/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)

with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Condonation of Delay : 8. There was a delay in filing Appeals before this Tribunal. Assessee has stated that he was not well versed with technology and income ... Assessee explaining the reason for delay. We are convinced that there was ‘reasonable cause’ on the part of Assessee and therefore we condone the delay. 9. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th August

Keystone Foundation, Nilgiris vs. ACIT, Exemptions Ward, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1680/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1680/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Keystone Foundation, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of P.B. No. 35, Groves Hill Road, Income Tax, Kotagiri, Nilgiris 643 217. Exemptions Ward, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aaatk0218N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, 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 : 29.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.05.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-9, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate Submits That The Assessee Raised 9 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates In Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Made On Account Of Non-Filing Of Audit Report In Form 10B In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 164(2)

along with the ITR on 29.11.2023, there is a delay of 29 days in filing the same. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay before the ld. CIT(E), which was declined vide his order dated 11.01.2025. We note that while the said condonation of delay petition ... that the assessee had sought for relief in terms of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act by filing a petition for the condonation of delay in filing Form No.10B for the assessment year under consideration before the delegated authority / CIT(E), Chennai and the same was rejected by their

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Ambattur Clothing Private Limited, Tiruvallur

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1663/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1663/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ambattur Clothing Private Limited, Income Tax, 86/E2, Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle 1(1), Ambattur Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai. Ambattur, Thiruvallur 600 058. [Pan:Aaaca4127D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vinay Jain, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 67 Days. The Appellant-Revenue 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 Revenue Are Bonafide, Which 2

For Appellant: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Jain, CA
Section 14A

find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 67 days. The Appellant-Revenue 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 Revenue are bonafide, which 2 I.T.A

Hemant Kumar Tiwari, Tiruppur vs. PCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1404/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1404/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Hemant Kumar Tiwari, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 6, Vinayagapuram 1St Street, Circle 1, 12, Royapuram Main Road, Tiruppur. Tiruppur 641 601. [Pan:Abdpt4540J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.06.2023 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act” In Short).

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 263

short). 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 623 days. The assessee filed notarized affidavit for condonation of delay. The contents in the affidavit are reproduced herein below: 2 I.T.A. No.1404/Chny/25 1. That I am assessed to income tax with DCIT, Non-Corporate Circle ... with erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The ld. AR supported the reasons explained in the affidavit and prayed to condone the delay. 4. The ld. DR Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT vehemently opposed in condoning the delay and argued that no sufficient cause for the delay

Bombay Oxygen Investments Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Jao - Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 793/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Bombay Oxygen Investments Ltd. Dcit-15(1)(2) 22/B, Mittal Tower, 210 Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point Vs. M.K. Road Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-40 0020. Pan : Aaacb1753A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ronak Doshi
Section 14ASection 250Section 253(5)

hence they filed an appeal with a delay of 720 days, it was mentioned. In the 2 Bombay Oxygen Investments Ltd. petition for condonation of delay in filing of an appeal, the appellant relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, Collector of Land Revenue Vs. Mrs. Katzi & Others ... appellant also argued on almost similar lines and requested for condonation of delay. 3. Per contra, Ld. DR of Revenue, has opposed the plea and filed written submission which is reproduced below :- “1. Background of the Case The present appeal has been filed by the assessee, Bombay Oxygen Investments

Giriraj Daulal Damani HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chembers

In the result all appeals filed by the assessees for all assessment years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4516/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4513/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anant Vijay Damani Vs. Income Tax Officer 1304/1305, F Wing Ashok Piramal Chember, Gardens, Tokersi, Jivraj Lalbaug, Parel Road Sewree, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai- 400015 Pan:Aeepd7764E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 51

months to 2 years in filing above appeals before this Tribunal. Affidavit 3 ITA Nos. 4513, 4514, 4515, 4516/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 seeking condonation of delay in respect of above appeals are placed in the respective paper books. The Ld.AR submitted that, the authorised representative was common for above assessee ... filing the present appeal before this Tribunal, within the period of limitation. In my view there is sufficient cause made out to condone the delay as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji&Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support

Narottam Daulal Damani HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chember

In the result all appeals filed by the assessees for all assessment years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4515/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4513/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anant Vijay Damani Vs. Income Tax Officer 1304/1305, F Wing Ashok Piramal Chember, Gardens, Tokersi, Jivraj Lalbaug, Parel Road Sewree, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai- 400015 Pan:Aeepd7764E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 51

months to 2 years in filing above appeals before this Tribunal. Affidavit 3 ITA Nos. 4513, 4514, 4515, 4516/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 seeking condonation of delay in respect of above appeals are placed in the respective paper books. The Ld.AR submitted that, the authorised representative was common for above assessee ... filing the present appeal before this Tribunal, within the period of limitation. In my view there is sufficient cause made out to condone the delay as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji&Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support

Radhika Anant Damani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chember, Mumbai

In the result all appeals filed by the assessees for all assessment years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4514/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4513/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anant Vijay Damani Vs. Income Tax Officer 1304/1305, F Wing Ashok Piramal Chember, Gardens, Tokersi, Jivraj Lalbaug, Parel Road Sewree, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai- 400015 Pan:Aeepd7764E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 51

months to 2 years in filing above appeals before this Tribunal. Affidavit 3 ITA Nos. 4513, 4514, 4515, 4516/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 seeking condonation of delay in respect of above appeals are placed in the respective paper books. The Ld.AR submitted that, the authorised representative was common for above assessee ... filing the present appeal before this Tribunal, within the period of limitation. In my view there is sufficient cause made out to condone the delay as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji&Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support

Anant Vijay Damani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai

In the result all appeals filed by the assessees for all assessment years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4513/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4513/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anant Vijay Damani Vs. Income Tax Officer 1304/1305, F Wing Ashok Piramal Chember, Gardens, Tokersi, Jivraj Lalbaug, Parel Road Sewree, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai- 400015 Pan:Aeepd7764E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 51

months to 2 years in filing above appeals before this Tribunal. Affidavit 3 ITA Nos. 4513, 4514, 4515, 4516/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2012-13 seeking condonation of delay in respect of above appeals are placed in the respective paper books. The Ld.AR submitted that, the authorised representative was common for above assessee ... filing the present appeal before this Tribunal, within the period of limitation. In my view there is sufficient cause made out to condone the delay as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji&Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support

Shri. Bishmit Singh Chawla, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(4)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4238/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Bishmit Singh Chawla Ito Ward 41(4)(1) Coregaon Wine Shop No. Ii Room No. 603 Hanuman Tekdi, Opp. Vs. Kautilya Bhavan Western Express Highway Bandra Kurla Goregaon East Complex, Bandra-E Mumbai-400 063. Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Afapc7509P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 11Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 270ASection 271ASection 69A

Additional Grounds of appeal 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A)/NFAC failed to condone the delay of 108 days in filing of appeal before the appellate authority without considering that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate ... compliance. Once they come to know about the order, an appeal was filed and hence Ld. 3 Bishmit Singh Chawla AR pleaded for condonation of delay. The Ld. DR has opposed the contentions of Ld. AR/appellant. After hearing both sides, the Bench has decided to condone the delay