← 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

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 1827/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

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

Laxmanji Khodaji Solanki (Thakor), Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1626/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 148Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 271F

assessment order or the CIT(A) order. He drew our attention to this very reason stated before the Ld. CIT(A) also for condoning the delay in filing appeal before it in Form No. 35. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that during the impugned year the assesses brother ... give assessee an opportunity of presenting all facts before the AO duly supported with evidences. 6. Ld. DR objected to the condonation of delay. 7. Having heard the contention of both the parties, we find that the assessee has adduced sufficient cause for the delay of 198 days in filing

Shivjeet Ghatge (Legal Heir of Mr Vijaysinh Ghatge), Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1128/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 250

shall file all the necessary details before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Condonation of Delay : 5. There was a delay of 606 days in filing the appeal by the legal heir of the assessee. We are convinced that there

Aditi Mitra, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 37(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 25/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 25/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Aditi Mitra,…………………………………...……Appellant Flat No. 401, Block No. 12, Ujaas, The Condoville, 69, S.K. Deb Road, Kolkata-700048, West Bengal [Pan:Aczpb6415H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-37(3), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 183Section 282Section 68

days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed a condonation petition dated 06.01.2025 before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 251 days mentioning that the she availed the benefit of Income Disclosure Scheme (IDS) 2016 and declared her undisclosed income under that scheme ... appeal, due to that there was a delay of 251 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within

Charsur Arts Foundation, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 1753/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.:1753/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Charsur Arts Foundation, The Commissioner Of No. 72, M.C.P. Ramasamy Road, Vs. Income Tax (Exemption), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aabtc-1154-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Hithesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai Dated 16.05.2025 Passed Under Section 119(2)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Solitary Issue Argued On Merits Is With Regard To Maintainability Of Appeal Filed Against The Order Passed Under Section 119(2)(B) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Hithesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139

Brief facts of the case are as follows: 4. The assessee, M/s. Charsur Arts Foundation filed a petition on 07.04.2025 for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B for the assessment year 2020-21 before the CIT(E). Considering the submissions of the assessee and in view of the CBDT ... Being aggrieved, the assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Id CIT E erred in rejecting the assessee application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B and upholding the order of Id CPC. 2. That on the facts and circumstances the case the Id CIT overlooked

Hirachand Rameshchand, Mayiladuthurai vs. Income Tax Officer, Kumbakonam

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

ITA 1643/CHNY/2025[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1643/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Hirachand Rameshchand, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 17B, Gandhi Road, Ward 1, Kumbakonam. Mayiladuthurai 609 001, Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aadpr2968R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Akshit A Jain, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.12.2024 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Thane For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 96 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 Akshit A Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 68

year 2007-08. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 96 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

4G Communications, Pondicherry vs. ITO, Ward-5., Pondicherry

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

ITA 1618/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1618/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 4G Communications, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 30, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, West Sathiya Ward 5, Nagar, Saram, Puducherry 605 013. Pondicherry. [Pan:Aabfz5235D] (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 : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A)-10, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 2 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

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 2 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 ... Under the above facts and circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and direct the ld. CIT(A) to consider the application for condoning the delay and condone the delay of 9 days, if any, in filing the appeal by the assessee and adjudicate the issue on merits by affording

Arulappan Joseph Maria Sebastian, Kanyakumari vs. ITO, Ward-3, Nagercoil

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

ITA 1211/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms.L. Sweety, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 250

assessee didn’t respond; and taking note that there was delay in filing of the appeal before him, the Ld.CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in- limine. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee didn’t receive any notices from the Office of the First Appellate ... averments made therein and prayed for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A). 5. Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to condone the delay. 6. Having gone through the contents of the affidavit as well as the application for condonation of delay of ten (10) months to file

Amar Vithaldas Gandhi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3107/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Amar Vithaldas Gandhi, Dy. Cit Circle 35(1), 203, Panorama Apartments, Kautilya Bhavan, Jaisukhlal Mehta Road, Santacruz Vs. Mumbai. West, Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aefpg 2142 G Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Fenil Bhat
Section 2(22)(e)

Learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance upon the Learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance upon the application for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit. In application for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit. In application for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit

Ankit Gems Private Limited (As Successor to Ankit Gems), Bandra (East) vs. Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai, Churchgate

ITA 3097/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sarda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

fact that there is a delay of 427 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, for which petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. From the perusal of the application for condonation of delay, it is brought out that one of the employee ... decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the settled principle of law as stated above, we find it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the present appeal and take it up for adjudication on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee

Gemini Dyeing and Printing Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2921/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Nagpal, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 56(2)

Appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from presenting the present appeal within the prescribed time and therefore prays your Honour to condone the delay in presenting the appeal and admit the appeal in the fairness of law.” 2. Brief facts pertaining to AY 2015-16 is that ... afresh. 3. There is a delay of 59 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record

Mohit Satsangi, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-16(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1362/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalmohit Satsangi, Dcit, 24Th Floor, E-2 Block, Circle-16(1), Civic Centre, Jawaharlal Vs. Delhi. Nehru Marg, Delhi-110017. Pan-Awmps2265D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Basant Kumar, Adv. & Ms. Sabhya Saachi Sharma, Ar Department By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl./ Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [Cit(A) In Short], Dated 22.01.2025 In Appeal No. Addl./Jcit-(A) Mumbai- 10036/2022-23 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Delayed By 143 Days Before The Ld. Cit(A), For Which Delay Condonation Petition Was Also Filed, Wherein It Was Stated By The Mohit Satsangi Vs. Acit Assessee That He Had Filed Rectification Applications On Two Occasions Before The Ao For Rectification Of The Order, However, Both These Applications Were Dismissed, Therefore, The Assessee Had With No Other Alternate But To File The Appeal Before Cit(A) & In This Process The Same Was Got Delayed By 143 Days. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Find Any Force In The Reasons Given By The Assessee & Not Admitted The Appeal Of The Assessee By Not Condoning The Delay. 3. Before Us, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Delay Is Bonafide & There Was Reasonable Cause As Assessee Was Exploring The Alternate Remedy & Acted In Terms Of Legal Advice Therefore, The Appeal Was Got Delayed. He Also Placed Reliance On The Following Judgments: -Subhash Malik Vs. Cit 325 Itr 243 (All) -Sps Educational & Welfare Society Versus Dcit-Dpc [2022 (9) Tmi 87-

Section 250

find any force in the reasons given by the assessee and not admitted the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay. 3. Before us, Ld. AR of the assessee submits that the delay is bonafide and there was reasonable cause as assessee was exploring the alternate remedy ... Shilpa Gopala Reddy v. ITO [2020 (4) TMI 646 ITAT Bangalore]. 4. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR objected to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal and stated that there was no Bonafide reason and only when the assessee had failed in rectification proceedings, he proceeded

Voith Hydro Pvt Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT Circle-25(1), Delhi

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

ITA 5722/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalvoith Hydro Private Limited Assistant Commissioner A20 & 21, Noida Sector-59, Of Income Tax, Uttar Pradesh-201301. Vs. Circle-25(1), New Delhi. Pan-Aabcv5041J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 243BSection 243CSection 250

around 102 days in filing of the present appeal before the ITAT Delhi Benches, New Delhi. Perusal of the application in respect of condonation of delay would show that the assessee has mistakenly filed this appeal before the Pune Bench of the ITAT. Thereafter the Pune Bench, vide its order ... granted opportunity to the assessee to file an appeal before the Delhi Benches. Considering the facts as coming out in the application for condonation of delay and the order of ITAT Voith Hydro (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT Pune Bench, we are of the firm view that the delay happened

Gurmeet Singh, Punjab vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Ropar, Punjab

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 712/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 712/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Gurmeet Singh, Ito, बनाम 939, Type Ii, Ward 2(2), Nuhon Colony Ghanauli, Ropar Vs. Rupnagar 140113 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ageps7897P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27-08-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27-08-2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

days in filing of the appeal. During the proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay along with an Affidavit, which is reproduced as under:- 4 6 3. I have considered the reasoning given in the affidavit and inclined to condone ... delay. 4. The ld. DR did not have any objection for this condonation of delay. 5. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring income of ₹3,36,320/-. The assessment was reopened under section 147 r.w.s. 263 of the Income

Kailash Tyagi, Yamunanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Yamunanagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 698/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 698/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Kailash Tyagi, Ito, बनाम #524, Gobind Puri, Ward 2, Near Santhosh Hospital, Yamunanagar Vs. Yamunanagar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Adupt9570D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Rajiv Sachdeva, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. CIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

hearing. 2. At the outset it is noticed that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 27 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed along with supporting medical. 3. The learned AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to unavoidable medical ... their rights. He thus argued that the orders of the authorities below should be upheld. However, he fairly left the issue of condonation of delay to the discretion of the Bench. 6. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned AR for the assessee and the learned

Pinkal Sureshkumar Kothari, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1303/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1303/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Pinkal Sureshkumar Income Tax Officer Kothari Ward-5(2)(1), Vs. 4, Nemrajul Flat, Ahmedabad Navavikas Gruh Road, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amlpk3944L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Parth Mehta, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Parth Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250Section 250(2)

Registry has noted the appeal to be time barred by 70 days. The assessee has filed an application for seeking condonation of delay stating as under: ITA No.1303/Ahd/2025 [Pinkal Sureshkumar Kothari vs. ITO] A.Y. 2017-18 - 2 – “1. Appellant Assessee is a Salaried Individual who has filed his Income ... that the appropriate remedy lies in preferring an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal 7. Appellant herewith approaches Hon'ble Tribunal to kindly condone the delay of 2 months in filing of appeal The delay in filing the present appeal is purely unintentional and occasioned solely due to the bonafide

Arihant Travel Solution Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer 11(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 621/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kr. Biswas, Addl. CIT- Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250

appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 1873 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. The affidavit and reasons are plausible and reasons are valid. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose

Ma Shanti Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., Birbhum vs. ACIT, CC 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 570/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in incorrectly concluding that the assessee should have filed Application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10IC before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, ignoring the fact that delay up to 3 months from ... dismissed the appeal on the ground for non- filing of Application before The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Act 1961 for condonation of delay in filing Form 10-IC, overlooking the fact that the delay in filing Form-10IC was duly condoned by CBDT vide circular no, 19-2023 vide

Late Sathurappa Naicker Narayanasamy, L/R. by K. Saraswathi, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 1747/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 250Section 271F

before 29.06.2024. However, the appeal was filed belatedly on 18.06.2025. The legal heir of the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by affidavit stating there in the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated is that due to sudden demise of assessee ... Later the appeal papers were prepared and filed before the Tribunal on 18.06.2025 with delay. On perusal of the reason stated for condonation of delay, we find there is sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone

Upneet Singh Arneja, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 45(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1100/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

invalid by the CPC. Later on, it is seen that the assessee has furnished ITR for the year under consideration on 16.04.2018 without condonation of delay where income of Rs.4,43,800/- and turnover of Rs.2,95,86,240/- was declared. The assessee has not filed the form 3CA/3CD