← 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

Uttam Krishnani, Rewa vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Katni

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

ITA 182/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250(6)

dismissed the assessee’s appeal on limitation ground, treating the assessee’s appeal as time barred. 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 ... section 249(2) of the Act. Accordingly, it is held that this was a fit case for the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of the appeal in his office and to admit the appeal for decision on merits. In view of section

Amit Kumar Yadav, Seoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Seoni

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 168/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

appeal are as under:- “1. That the learned CIT Appeal has erred in law and on facts of the case in refusing to Condon the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has explained the delay to be beyond his controlled should be condoned. The appeal should have been admitted ... hearing of this appeal.” “1. That the learned CIT Appeal has erred in law and on facts of the case in refusing to Condone the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has explained the delay to be beyond his controlled should be condoned. The appeal should have been admitted

Amit Kumar Yadav, Seoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Seoni

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 166/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

appeal are as under:- “1. That the learned CIT Appeal has erred in law and on facts of the case in refusing to Condon the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has explained the delay to be beyond his controlled should be condoned. The appeal should have been admitted ... hearing of this appeal.” “1. That the learned CIT Appeal has erred in law and on facts of the case in refusing to Condone the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has explained the delay to be beyond his controlled should be condoned. The appeal should have been admitted

Anil Kumar Gupta, Rewa vs. ITO- Ward-1, Rewa

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

ITA 160/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 253(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

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 I.T.A. No.160/JAB/2024 Assessment Year ... 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

Zakat Infaq&Sadaqah Trust, Srinagar vs. CIT(Expemption), Chandigarh

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

ITA 212/ASR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Abhinav Vijh, C.A. &
Section 12A(1)(ac)

rejecting the application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, 1961. 2 I.T.A. No. 212/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2024-25 Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is filed 2. belatedly by 190 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation

Ishar Infrastructure Develpopers Private Limited, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

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

ITA 686/ASR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 686/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(3)

which has emanated from the order of the AO, CPC, Bengaluru, dated 07/08/2023, passed u/s 143(1) of the Act 61. 2. Condonation of Delay: It is pointed out by the Registry that the appeal is filed belatedly by 93 ( ninety three ) days. The assessee has filed an application ... condonation of delay along I.T.A. No. 686/Asr/2024 2 Assessment Year: 2022-23 with an affidavit explaining the fact that previously the legal advisor of the assessee Mr. Ashwani Juneja had all the requisite documents in his possession for filing the appeal but on account of sudden medical emergency, was advised

Gajendra Kumar, Mahoba vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2 (2)(4 ), Banda

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

ITA 94/ALLD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad28 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Gajendra Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 526, Rathaur Colony, Jaitpur, Ward-2(2)(4), Banda Belatal, Mahoba, U.P. Pan:Bitpk6827P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 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) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 3.01.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ito, Ward-2(2)(4), Banda Dated 21.12.2019 Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Disallowing Appeal & Confirming The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs. 25, 90,414/- As Cash Deposits Into Bank Account Under Section 69A Of It Act, 1961 Because All Notices Were Issued U/S 250 Of The Act On Itba Portal & No Physical Notice Was Issued To Appellant On Address Mentioned In Filed Itr & Filed Appeal & Has Disallowed Appeal Without Considering This Fact That Appellant Lives At Village Jaitpur Post Belataal, District Mahoba (U.P.) & Is Unknown About Information Technology. 2. That The Learned Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Disallowing Appeal & Confirming The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs. 25, 90,414/- As Cash Deposits Into Bank Account Under Section 69A Of It Act, 1961 Without Considering This Fact That Appeal Was Filed By Advocate Dinesh Gupta Who Was Expired & Email Id In Profile Of Appellant Was Update By Him. Appellant Was Unknown About Login Id & Password Of Portal & Email Id Which Was Maintained By Late Advocate Dinesh Gupta.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 221(1)Section 250Section 69A

very outset, it is observed that the appeal is delayed by 78 days. The petition has been filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. It was submitted that the assessee had not received any notice that was issued by the ld. CIT(A,) because his Authorized Representative Sh. Dinesh ... condoned. An affidavit was also filed in this regard. After considering the facts laid down in the condonation petition and the affidavit, we condone the delay and admit the case for hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that the Department received information that the assessee had deposited cash

Kosuru Krishnaveni, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 414/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 414/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Kosuru Krishnaveni V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 3(3) Flat No. 401, Jeevan Visakha Apartments Income Tax Office Mntc Colony, Seethammadhara Infinity Towers, Sankaramatam Road Visakhapatnam – 530013 Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan:Aotpd2598D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 147Section 69

appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “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. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... immediately. She could file appeal against the assessment order on 02.05.2024 with a delay of 39 days. The appellant submitted a petition for condonation of delay along with medical certificate before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 5. As stated above, the appellant was never exposed to income

The Tenali Pt Employees Mutually Aided Co Op Thrift Credit Society Ltd, Tenali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

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

ITA 361/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 361/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) The Tenali P & T Employees V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 1 Mutually Aided Co-Op Thrift & Income Tax Office Credit Society Limited Opp. Sai Baba Temple, Bose Road D.No. 22-5-60, Sarojini Naidu Street Tenali – 522201, Andhra Pradesh Tanali – 522201 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aacat9757E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Authorised Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.AR”], inviting our attention to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 526 days in filing the appeal stating that submissions are vague and dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case ... submitted before us that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal as no such sufficient cause is established. Further, Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not appreciate the submissions properly and without giving any reasons for not condoning

Chaitanya Bhrathi, Vizianagaram vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 179/VIZ/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2025-26) Vs. Chaitanya Bharathi Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemptions Ward Plot No. 02, Naidu Residency Hyderabad C.B. Colony, Cantonment Vizianagaram – 535003 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaatc4803D] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ca : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

justice, and fails to consider the appellant's bona fide explanation for the delay. 6. That the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) ought to have condoned the delay in the interest of justice, particularly in light of judicial precedents which hold that procedural lapses in bona fide cases involving charitable entities should ... time limit prescribed as per CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2024 dated 25.04.2024. Before us, Ld.AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit to explain the cause of delay of 42 days in filing the application in Form 10AB seeking registration

Sri Vinayaka Educational Trust, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption Ward), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 120/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 120/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19) Sri Vinayaka Educational Trust V. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward) Income Tax Office Panukuvalaasa Village Infinity Towers Pachipenta Mandal Sankaramatam Road Vizianagaram – 535591 Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaits1192H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 143(1)

Authorised Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.AR”], inviting our attention to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 991 days in filing the appeal stating that submissions are vague and dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case ... submitted before us that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal as no such sufficient cause is established. Further, Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not appreciate the submissions properly and without giving any reasons for not condoning

Ugrasen Yadav, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 7(2), Jaipur

ITA 886/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 250Section 68

presented 34 days after the prescribed period of limitation. 2 Ugrasen Yadav, Jaipur. 2. On behalf of the appellant, an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed. The application is supported by an affidavit of the applicant. 3. First of all, we have heard on the application seeking condonation ... true that with the application, no medical record has been submitted, but, Ld. DR for the department has no objection to the condonation of delay. When the affidavit of the applicant has gone unchallenged, there being delay of 34 days, having record to the nature of the issues involved

Manu Chaudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur

ITA 768/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No. 768/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2009-10 Shri Manu Chaudhary 7-CHA-11, Jawahar Nagar Jaipur - 302 017 बनाम ITO Vs. Ward 6(1) Jaipur } प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ADIPC 0353 R अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Dheeraj Borad, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

liable to be cancelled. 4. That on the facts and in law the ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal and should have maintained the direction given by he himself to the AO in Para 6.4 of the same impugned order inter alia saying ... work out the long term capital gain 5. That on the facts and in law the M. ADDL/ICIT (A) grossly erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and consequently dismissing the assessee's appeal for the reason of delay in filing the same 6. That

Vinod Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 726/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 154Section 234ASection 80T

delay of 397 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay dated 30.04.2025. The application is companied with the affidavit duly sworn. The contents of the affidavit read as under :- Reg: Vinod Kumar Gupta ... Thus due to this reason the appeal could not be filed within time. 6. That the contents or averment of application for condonation of delay are true and correct and may be treated as part of this affidavit. Place Jaipur Date: 01.05.2025 Deponent VERIFICATION I. Vinod Kumar Gupta S/o Late

Shri Bhola Food Products, Hardoi vs. DCIT/ACIT (Central Circle-2), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 90/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application duly supported by affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control I.T.A. No.90/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2021-22 2 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

Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association, Kanpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

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

ITA 229/LKW/2025[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. N.A. Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association, Vs. The Cit (Exemption), E-23, Kamla Nagar Township, Lucknow Nazirabad, Kanpur-208005 Pan:Aaacu7822R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate 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 Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(Exemption), Under Section 12Ab(1)(B)(Ii)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Rejecting The Application Moved For Registration Of The Said Society Under Section 12Ab(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “01. Because The Cit (Exemptions) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Rejecting The Application Moved For Registration Under Section 12A(B) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Which Rejection Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Registration As Claimed Be Granted. 02. Because The Cit(E) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That No Response Had Been Filed To His Letter Dated 11.07.2024 Which Is Incorrect, In As Much As, Response Was Filed On 26.07.2024 Vide Letter Dated 25.07.2024 As Such, Rejecting The Application Without Considering The Submission Is Erroneous, Misconceived, The Order Passed Be Set Aside & Registration Claimed Be Granted.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 154

prayed that the delay may be condoned. After duly considering the circumstances cited, the we feel it is a fit case of the condonation of delay and accordingly the delay of 138 is condoned. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed an application in Form No.10

M/S Hindustan Seva Trust, Shahjahanpur vs. CIT Exemption, Lucknow

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

ITA 391/LKW/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)

recalled, but upon consultation with another counsel Sh. Gurbachan Singh Chawla, the assessee was advised to file an appeal with a petition for condonation of delay. Accordingly, it was prayed that in view of the fact that the delay was entirely caused due to the negligence of the counsel

M/S Hindustan Seva Trust, Shahjahanpur vs. CIT Exemption, Lucknow

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

ITA 390/LKW/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)

recalled, but upon consultation with another counsel Sh. Gurbachan Singh Chawla, the assessee was advised to file an appeal with a petition for condonation of delay. Accordingly, it was prayed that in view of the fact that the delay was entirely caused due to the negligence of the counsel

Attak Machinery Private Limited, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Circle-1, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 134/LKW/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

that has been laid down by the CBDT in paragraph 3 of the Department’s Circular No.19/2023 which the Board had issued for condonation of delay in filing Form 10 IC, for the assessment year 2021-22. Therefore, this coupled with the fact of the filing of Form

Sonalben Sanjaysinh Vihol, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Patan

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

ITA 1828/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1827/Ahd/2024 & 1828/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively Sonalben Sanjaysinh Vihol The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/31, Ishan Residency Ward-1, V/S. R C Technical Road Patan – 384 265 Ghatlodia Ahmedabad – 380 061 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Alxpv 4350 Q (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chirag Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Of Even Date 30/07/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-2015 & 2016-17. Ita Nos.1827 & 1828/Ahd/2024 Sonalben Sanjaysinh Vihol Vs. Ito Asst.Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Asst.Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 2. Both the appeals of the assessee are time-barred by 21 days. Separate applications for condonation of delay have been filed. Considering the averments made in the applications and shortness of delay, the delay in filing these appeals is hereby condoned. Assessee’s appeal