← 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

Moizuddin Naimuddin Shaikh, Latur vs. ITO Ward 1 Latur, Latur

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1263/PUN/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013
For Respondent: Shri Girish Ladda
Section 144Section 250

informed that there is a delay of 179 days in filing of the present appeal. Application with affidavit has been filed for condonation of delay. Reasons for the delay mentioned in the affidavit are as under:- 2. That the said delay occurred due to unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances beyond ... life, as explained hereinabove. 7. In view of the foregoing, I most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 197 days in filing the present appeal, in the interest of justice and equity. 8. That the contents of this affidavit are true

Just Blossom Foundation, Andhra Pradesh vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 889/HYD/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.889/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2024-25) Just Blossom Foundation, Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. (Exemption), Hyderabad. Bapatla, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aadtj8267F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms. G. Kalyani. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 20/08/2025

For Appellant: Ms. G. KalyaniFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 80G

that there is a delay of 109 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for such delay. We have perused the condonation petition and considered the submissions made by the Learned Authorised Representative ... while dealing with the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal, we are inclined to condone the delay of 109 days in filing of this appeal before us and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The grounds of the assessee

Finecab Wires & Cables Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 614/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.614/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. Finecab Wires & Cables Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 8(1), Hyderabad. Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan:Aaacf4141Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Akshay Surana, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 20/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Surana, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 115BSection 119Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

Court in Surat Smart City Development Ltd. (supra) on the ground that, in that case, the assessee had duly filed an application for condonation of delay under section 119 of the Act and the Hon’ble High Court had specifically directed the CBDT to consider such application. In contrast ... directions that the assessee is at liberty to file a fresh Form 10-IC for A.Y. 2020–21 along with a petition for condonation of delay under section 119 of the Act before the CBDT. The Ld. AO shall consider the claim of the assessee under section 115BAA only after

Sevagramam Charitable Trust, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

ITA 563/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Us:

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

that the CIT (Exemption) has failed to exercise the discretion vested with him under the proviso to Section 12A(1)(ac) for condoning the delay involved in the application filed by the assessee trust. 7. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives for both parties, perused the order ... from 01.10.2024 made available on the statute a “Proviso” to Section 12A(1)(ac) that formally allows the CIT(Exemption) to condone the delay if reasonable cause is shown, which, thus, renders the application valid and deemed to be filed on time. We thus, in terms of deserves

Sevagramam Charitable Trust, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

ITA 562/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Us:

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

that the CIT (Exemption) has failed to exercise the discretion vested with him under the proviso to Section 12A(1)(ac) for condoning the delay involved in the application filed by the assessee trust. 7. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives for both parties, perused the order ... from 01.10.2024 made available on the statute a “Proviso” to Section 12A(1)(ac) that formally allows the CIT(Exemption) to condone the delay if reasonable cause is shown, which, thus, renders the application valid and deemed to be filed on time. We thus, in terms of deserves

Bhagini Mandal, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 397/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. Himangini Sanghi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Karthik Manickam, SR-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 80G

convinced with the reasons for the delay furnished by the assessee and accordingly declined to condone the delay. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed in limine. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. On the issue of delay in filing ... assessee was unaware of the CPC order until receipt of the demand notice. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. On merits, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was registered under section

Hrm Interiors, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 295/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. Suvibha Nolkha, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 226(3)Section 44A

delay of 174 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a ITA No.295/Hyd/2025 2 petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. In this regard, the Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee did not receive ... present assessee, a private entity, not having any such infrastructure. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are inclined to condone the delay of 174 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the delay of 174 days in filing the appeal is condoned

Prithvi Information Solutions Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 47/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanRao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 143(3)

therefore, prayed that the delay may be condoned considering the exceptional circumstances. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the condonation of delay. It was submitted that the information regarding liquidation and appointment of Official Liquidator was never brought to the notice of the Revenue ... application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, taking a judicial and liberal approach, we condone the delay of 623 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Gentle Commotrade Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 1470/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1470/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Gentle Commotrade Private Limited, 2Nd Floor, 1, N.S. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Kolkata 700 001, West Bengal. Chennai. [Pan:Aadcg7839F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A

that this appeal is filed with a delay of 21 days. The ACIT Central Circle 2(1)(i/c), Chennai 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 2 I.T.A

Bangalore Lakshmikanth Venkatesh Murthy, Rajajinagar Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1328/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year:2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CA
Section 143(3)Section 250

Submissions of the Ld. AR: Sri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, the Ld. AR for the assessee, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the appeal which was only 14 days. The Ld. AR pleaded that the delay may kindly be condoned ... assessee had filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 14 days. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay stating that there was no ‘sufficient cause’. In this case, there is a delay of only 14 days. Substantial justice is more important than procedural

Rinoo, Pimpri- Chinchwad vs. Income Tax Officer, Thane

In the result, grounds of appeal of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 918/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing)

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 254(1)Section 69A

Court in its order in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 03 of 2020. The ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of limine without condoning the delay in filing appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed ... authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by ld. AR of the assessee. Firstly, we considering the plea of condonation of delay. The foremost plea of ld. AR of the assessee is not no notice during assessment was served upon the assessee. We find that assessment

Eclerx Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle2(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 4314/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4314/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 Eclerx Services Limited Unit No.401, 4Th Office Level, Building No.11, Serene Properties Pvt. Ltd. Sez Mind, Thane, Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai, Mumbai-400 708 Pan : Aaace7932L ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Chaugule, CAFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

that Agilyst had been merged with eClers Services limited pursuant to the order of the Bombay High Court. 2. Ground No. 2-Condonation of delay dismissed without Ovine an opportunity of being heard 2.1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in lass the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred ... condoning the delay s filing of the appeal by the Appellant and dismissing As appeal filed on the grounds that the reasons given by the Appellant As delay in filing of the appeal could not be considered as a sufficient cause. 2.2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Merrmax Software and Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4087/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4087/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 Merrmax Software & Systems Private Limited C/O. Veeta Legal Services, 7 Raheja Centre, Ground Floor, Fpj Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan : Aaecm2026K

For Appellant: Shri Kaushik Makwana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 156Section 69A

26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025, had observed that a justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income ... Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. That in the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 5. case of Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil

Sunil Ramachandran Nair, Mumbai vs. Circle 23(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4039/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 6B

There is a delay of 462 days in filing the appeal and in this regard the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit containing the reasons for the delay. The ld AR submitted that assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal earlier ... Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay of 462 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. We heard the parties and perused the material on record

Carlsberg India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Gurgaon, Gurugram

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

ITA 2935/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Bleasstt. Year: 2013-14 Carlsberg India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Tds Circle 4Th Floor, Rectangel No. 1, Gurugram, Commercial Complex, Haryana D-4, Saket, New Delhi – 17 (Pan: Aajcs8454J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By : Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 201(1)Section 250

again filed the appeal before the CIT(A) on 20.1.2022 explaining the erroneous dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) alongwith the condonation of delay application. However, vide order dated 28.2.2025 by the CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-3 Bengaluru for AY 2014-15 (i.e. on the same facts ... fully satisfied that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee in filing the belated appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, I condone the delay in dispute and remit back the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with the 2 | P a g e directions to decide

Samta Mittal, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1391/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Samta Mittal Vs. Ito 601, Royal Retreat, New Delhi Surajkund, Faridabad Pan No. Agzpm5730G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 144Section 234ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69A

grounds are without prejudice to each other. Whether there is any delay in filing of appeal (if yes, 11 please attach application seeking condonation of delay) The Ld. AR for the assessee filed the application for 3. condonation of delay. The Ld. AR further submitted that he could not file

Morpheus Developers Private Limited, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-4, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1753/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Morpheus Developers Private Vs Pr. Cit, Ltd., Delhi-4, 1, Main Road, Delhi. Maujpur, Delhi – 110 053. Pan: Aaicm1972A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Yudhister Mehtani, Ca Revenue By : Ms Amisha S. Gupt, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Pciit) U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) In Revision No.Pcit, Delhi-4/Revision-263/100000183556/2021 Arising Out Of The Order Dated 29.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Ito, Ward-17(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Has Pointed Out That There Was A Delay In Filing The Appeal. On Hearing On The Application For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That Primarily For The Reason That There Were Some Issues Pending Before The National Company Law Tribunal Followed By Appeal, There Could Not Be Adequate Representation Of The Assessee. In Fact, In January, 2023, The Greater Noida Authority Had Cancelled The Plot On Which The Company Was Running The Project. Thus, We Are Of The Considered View That The Delay Although Of Substantial Period Of Around 746 Days, Deserves To Be Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Yudhister Mehtani, CAFor Respondent: Ms Amisha S. Gupt, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

outset, the ld. AR has pointed out that there was a delay in filing the appeal. On hearing on the application for condonation of delay, we find that primarily for the reason that there were some issues pending before the National Company Law Tribunal followed by appeal, there could

Shri Sadguru Mahila Bahuodeshiya Samiti Maryadit Jankikund Chitrakoot, Chitrakoot, Satna vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

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

ITA 52/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 253(3)Section 271BSection 44A

been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal ... learned Sr. Departmental I.T.A. No.52/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay

Markandeya Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Belagavi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Belagavi

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

ITA 148/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

bench, that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the 2 ITA. No..148/PAN/2025 Markandeya Cooperative Credit Society Limited ... specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a cooperative credit society and has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 disclosing a total income of Rs.Nil after claiming deduction of Rs.26

Sakinabai Saifuddin Makati, Jamnagar vs. AO, Aaykar Bhawan, Jamnagar

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

ITA 403/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.403/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Sakinabai Saifuddin Makati बनाम Income Tax Officer, /Vs. C-2/333 Gidc Shanker Tekri, Ward-3(1), Jamnagar, Aaykar Udyog Nagar, Udyog Nagar S.O. Bhawan, Jamnagar-361 005 Jamnagar-361004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatpv770N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Buddh, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 144Section 250

assessee, for Assessment Year 2014-15, is barred by limitation by 591 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. 4. Learned Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons of delay that Personal health and family emergencies, was the main reason for delay ... parents and father-in-law of assessee were died because of their various ailments, which should not be reason to condone the delay. The assessee, himself, was not feeling any illness, ITA No. 403/RJT/2025 A.Y.14-15 Sakinabai S Makati hence, in the peculiar circumstances, assessee has failed to explain the sufficient