← 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

Navratan Bhavarlal Singadiya, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Office, Ward-1(3)(1) Previously Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1297/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1297/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम/ Navratan Bhavarlal Income Tax Officer Singadiya Ward-1(3)(1), Vs. Railwaypura Fruit Market, Ahmedabad Kalupur Rly. Station Road, Kalupur, Amdavad, Gujarat – 380001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aoqps3607F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Mrs. Divya Rathod, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr 18/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/08/2025

For Appellant: Mrs. Divya Rathod, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 5

part and not having passed emails of notices served on the assessee for prompt action. 3. The Ld. DR, however, objected the condonation of delay stating that it was substantial. 4. Having heard both the parties, I find that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing ... courts have considered that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late and by refusing the condonation of delay it can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold, defeating the cause of justice. That when substantial justice and technical considerations

Hansaben Girishbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed on this legal ground

ITA 1279/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1279/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Hansaben Girishbhai Shah The Dy.Cit बनाम/ 139, V.R. Shah Smruti Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Shikshan Mandir Ahmedabad – 380 015 Opp. Yogeshwar Nagar Society Nr. Dharnidhar Derasar Vasna Ahmedabad – 380 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aajpd 7188 H (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 27/03/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-2018. Hansaben Girishbhai Shah Vs. Dy.Cit, Cir-2(1)(1) Asst.Yeaar 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Asst.Yeaar 2017-18 2. There is a delay of thirty days in filing the present appeal. An application has been filed for condonation of delay. Considering the averments made in the application as well as the shortness of delay, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned

Lunkad Sky Vie Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(3), Pune

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

ITA 1463/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1463/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Lunkad Sky Vie Co- Vs. Ito, Ward-7(3), Pune. Operative Housing Society Limited, S. No.211, H. No.312, Lunkad Sky Vie, Lohegoan, Vimannagar, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaaal8573A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Vadodara [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “(All Grounds Are On An Alternate & Without Prejudice Basis To Each Other)

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

merits and without granting an appropriate opportunity for hearing thus violating the principle of natural justice. Learned CIT(A)-NFAC ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal as the delay was due to genuine hardship faced by the appellant. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in laws ... material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. It is the contention of Ld. AR that the petition for condonation of delay was furnished before Ld. CIT(A) wherein all the reasons were mentioned due to which the appellant could not file the appeal within

M/S. Hardev Construction Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.408/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) M/S Hardev Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, Circle Ii(I), Kolkata 8/2A, Garcha 2Nd Lane, Ballygunge, S.O. Kolkata, West Bengal-700019 Pan No. Aabch1827J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dipu Koley, Adl.Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.07.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 148 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Delay, Which Are Plausible & Bonafide. Ld. Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Objection To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, Delay Of 148 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. The Only Issue Pressed At The Time Of Hearing By The Ld. Counsel Of The Assessee Is Against The Invalid Approval Accorded For Issuing Notice

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dipu Koley, Adl.CIT-Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

appeal of the assessee is barred by 148 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay, which are plausible and bonafide. Ld. Sr. DR also did not raise any objection to condone the delay

Subramani Palani Muthu, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(6), Chennai

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

ITA 1779/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1779/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Subramani Palani Muthu, The Income Tax Officer, No.53, Seshachala Mudali Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 19(6), Saidapet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 015. Pan: Abnpm 2188F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Padmanabhan, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 250

been filed before ITAT on or before 31.12.2024. However, the appeal was filed belatedly on 20.06.2025. 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 reason stated is that the ex-parte order passed ... took steps to file appeal before the Tribunal, resulting in delay in filing the appeal. 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

Sri Sorimuthayannar Temple, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 1754/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1754/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sri Sorimuthayannar The Income Tax Officer, Temple, Vs. Exemptions Ward, Sinvampatti Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 416. Pan: Aabth 0590D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Arunachalesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri V. Arunachalesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 250

filed before ITAT on or before 03.11.2024. However, the appeal was filed belatedly on 19.06.2025. The assessee Trust has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by affidavit stating there in the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reason stated is that the assessee is a temple ... took steps to file appeal before the Tribunal, resulting in delay in filing the appeal. 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

Periya Valavadi Paccs, Valavadi vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Tirupur

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

ITA 1733/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1733/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Periya Valavadi Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Operative Vs. Ward 2(4), Credit Society, Tirupur K 2579, Periya Valavadi Paccs, Valavadi, Valavadi S.O., Tiruppur – 642 132. Pan: Aabap 9223E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Smt. S. Mathangi, Advocate (Through Virtual Mode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit & Smt. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025

For Appellant: Smt. S. Mathangi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT &
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 80P

There is a delay of 17 days in filing the appeal. The Secretary of the assessee’s society has filed affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. On perusal of the same, we find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing ... this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is Co- operative society registered under The Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. Initially, the assessee society

Pothanur Pacb Ltd., Namakkal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward_ 2, Namakkal

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

ITA 1328/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1328/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pothanur Pacb Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, S.390, Pothanur Road, Paramathi Ward 2, Velur, Namakkal 638 182. Namakkal. [Pan:Aaabp0259L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 97 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.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. CIT

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 97 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

Sundaram Sankar Anand, Karur vs. Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

ITA 2911/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Alagappa, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. M.Murali, CIT (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

have been filed with a delay of 261 days. The assessee has moved an application seeking condonation of delay, duly supported by an affidavit setting forth the reasons for such delay. 4. The ld.AR contended that the delay in filing the appeals was neither wilful nor deliberate, but occasioned ... prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the delay were to be condoned. 5. The ld.DR, on the other hand, opposed the condonation of delay, though no material was placed on record to effectively controvert the reasons advanced on behalf of the assessee. 6. Upon consideration of the rival

Sundaram Sankar Anand, Karur vs. Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

ITA 2853/CHNY/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Alagappa, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. M.Murali, CIT (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

have been filed with a delay of 261 days. The assessee has moved an application seeking condonation of delay, duly supported by an affidavit setting forth the reasons for such delay. 4. The ld.AR contended that the delay in filing the appeals was neither wilful nor deliberate, but occasioned ... prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the delay were to be condoned. 5. The ld.DR, on the other hand, opposed the condonation of delay, though no material was placed on record to effectively controvert the reasons advanced on behalf of the assessee. 6. Upon consideration of the rival

Sundaram Sankar Anand, Karur vs. Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

ITA 2851/CHNY/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Alagappa, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. M.Murali, CIT (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

have been filed with a delay of 261 days. The assessee has moved an application seeking condonation of delay, duly supported by an affidavit setting forth the reasons for such delay. 4. The ld.AR contended that the delay in filing the appeals was neither wilful nor deliberate, but occasioned ... prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the delay were to be condoned. 5. The ld.DR, on the other hand, opposed the condonation of delay, though no material was placed on record to effectively controvert the reasons advanced on behalf of the assessee. 6. Upon consideration of the rival

Sundaram Sankar Anand, Karur vs. Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

ITA 2850/CHNY/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Alagappa, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. M.Murali, CIT (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

have been filed with a delay of 261 days. The assessee has moved an application seeking condonation of delay, duly supported by an affidavit setting forth the reasons for such delay. 4. The ld.AR contended that the delay in filing the appeals was neither wilful nor deliberate, but occasioned ... prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the delay were to be condoned. 5. The ld.DR, on the other hand, opposed the condonation of delay, though no material was placed on record to effectively controvert the reasons advanced on behalf of the assessee. 6. Upon consideration of the rival