← 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

Kamaludheen Fathima, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Guruvayoor

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 534/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hiran C., CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

that there is a delay of 266 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the delay had occurred as the Chartered Accountant, who was entrusted with the matter failed ... appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication. Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant society is prevented by sufficient reasonable cause

Kamaludheen Fathima, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Guruvayoor

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 525/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hiran C., CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

that there is a delay of 266 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the delay had occurred as the Chartered Accountant, who was entrusted with the matter failed ... appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication. Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant society is prevented by sufficient reasonable cause

Arun Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(2), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes ¼xxu Xkks;y ½

ITA 923/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhelesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)

that there is delay of 49 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay narrating the reason that order was received by him on 14-02-2025 and appeal was to be filed on or before ... fault but it was on account of omission on the part of an employee Shri Zainul Aabeddin. Hence, the assessee prayed to condone the delay as it was not intentional delay but omission on the part of the employee Shri Zainul Aabeddin. The assessee has filed an affidavit of Shri

Gurmeet Singh, Sas Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(4), Chandigarh, Mohali

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1211/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1211/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Gurmeet Singh Ito-Ward-6(4) H.No.71072C, Model Town Sec.68 बनाम/ Vs. Mundikharar, Chajjumajra Mohali Sec.126, Distt. Kharar Punjab 160062 Sas Nagar – 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Difps-4252-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Pankaj Bhalla (Ca) (Virtual) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 14-11-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 25-11-2019 Making Addition Of Cash Deposit Of Rs.124.50

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla (CA) (Virtual) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 126Section 144Section 68

making addition of cash deposit of Rs.124.50 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 214 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. The Ld. AR pointed out to the affidavit of the assessee (Page Nos.34-35

Shri Sainath Education & Cheritable Trust, Vadodara vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 608/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2025

Bench: Us Supported By Duly Sworn Affidavit Of The Trustee Of The Assessee Trust Explaining The Cause Of Delay, Which Is Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR
Section 10ASection 12A

assessee did not benefit by not filing appeal. He therefore requested the delay to be condoned. 4. Ld. DR objected to the condonation of delay. 5. Having gone through the application filed by the assessee Trust, duly supported by a sworn affidavit of the Trustee of the Trust ... Accountant. The Revenue has not pointed out any infirmity in the explanation so offered for delay in filing appeal. Moreover, not condoning the delay would result in serious consequences to the assessee Trust, disentitling it to claim exemption of its income, without considering the genuineness of its claim

Akshat Education and Charitable Trust, Anand vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 456/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.456/Ahd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : N.A Akshat Education & Charitable Trust, 5/35, Gosainu Faliyu Asodar, Borsad Road, Asodar, Anand-388307. (Gujarat) बनाम The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Exemption), Ahmedabad स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaeta2211K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(E)"] Dated 14.08.2024, Whereby The Assessee'S Application In Form No. 10Ab Seeking Approval Under Section 80G(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Was Rejected By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 80G(5)(Iv)(B).

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

invoking the provisions of section 80G(5)(iv)(B). ITA No.456/Ahd/2025 Akshat Education and Charitable Trust Vs. CIT(E) Assessment Year N.A 2 Condonation of Delay 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay in filing the present appeal. As per the Registry, the appeal ... limitation period, whereas as per the assessee's computation, the delay is of 137 days. 3. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit of one of its trustees, Shri Bhaktiswaroop Dharmaprasad, explaining the reasons for the delay. It has been submitted therein that

Doshi Bhanji Devji Goushala Panjarapole Sarvajanik Trust Bhanavav, Bhavnagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 449/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2025
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(5)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(i)

issues are involved, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Condonation of Delay 2. In the appeal in ITA No. 443/Ahd/2025, there is a delay of 455 days in filing the appeal as noted by the Registry ... assessee is mentioned, indicating defective electronic service. 4. The Departmental Representative (DR), considering the facts and circumstances, raised no objection in condoning the delay. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the material on record. The chronology of events set out above shows that the assessee acted

Doshi Bhanji Devji Goushala Panjarapole Sarvajanik Trust Bhanavav, Bhavnagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 448/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2025
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(5)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(i)

issues are involved, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Condonation of Delay 2. In the appeal in ITA No. 443/Ahd/2025, there is a delay of 455 days in filing the appeal as noted by the Registry ... assessee is mentioned, indicating defective electronic service. 4. The Departmental Representative (DR), considering the facts and circumstances, raised no objection in condoning the delay. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the material on record. The chronology of events set out above shows that the assessee acted

Gujarat Technological University, Ahmedabad, Vadodara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Exemptions, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1187/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1187/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-10 Gujarat Technological University, The Dcit, Nr. Vishwakarma Govt. Engg. College, बनाम/ Circle-1, V/S. Near Visar Three Roads, Exemptions, Chandkheda Society Area S.O, Ahmedabad Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad-382424. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaalg1109L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Amrin Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Dated 14.03.2025, For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019–20, Arising Out Of The Rectification Order Passed By The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru, Under

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

noticed by the CIT(A) that the assessee had filed applications for condonation of delay in furnishing Form No. 10, Form No. 10B, and the revised return, both before the CIT(E), Ahmedabad, on 05.02.2024 and before the CBDT on 12.02.2024. The CIT(E) rejected the condonation application vide order ... filing of the prescribed forms. Relying upon CBDT Circular No. 11/2024 dated 01.11.2024, the CIT(A) observed that he had no jurisdiction to condone such delay, as the power to do so vests only with the specified authorities prescribed therein. The CIT(A) further referred to the statutory mandate under

Darul Ullom Fatimatuz-Zahra, Banaskantha vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 1019/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1018-1019/Ahd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : N.A Darul Uloom Fatimatuz-Zahra, Khadal Pura Vas Basu, Khadalpura Vas, Basu Vadgam, Banaskantha-385520. (Gujarat) बनाम Income Tax, (Exemption), V/S. Ahmedabad स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaetd2206K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Urjita Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 19/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(E)"], Both Arising From Rejection Of The Assessee'S Applications, One For Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act"] Dated 17.08.2023 & The Other For Approval Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act Dated 24.08.2023.

For Appellant: Ms. Urjita Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

common facts and issues are involved, both appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. Condonation of Delay 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 554 days in filing both appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee ... that no benefit has accrued to the assessee thereby. 3. The learned Departmental Representative, when queried, did not raise any objection to the condonation of delay. 4. We note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471) has laid down that substantial

Darul Ullom Fatimatuz-Zahra, Banaskantha vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 1018/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1018-1019/Ahd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : N.A Darul Uloom Fatimatuz-Zahra, Khadal Pura Vas Basu, Khadalpura Vas, Basu Vadgam, Banaskantha-385520. (Gujarat) बनाम /V/S. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Exemption), Ahmedabad स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaetd2206K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Urjita Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 19/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(E)"], Both Arising From Rejection Of The Assessee'S Applications, One For Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act"] Dated 17.08.2023 & The Other For Approval Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act Dated 24.08.2023.

For Appellant: Ms. Urjita Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

common facts and issues are involved, both appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. Condonation of Delay 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 554 days in filing both appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee ... that no benefit has accrued to the assessee thereby. 3. The learned Departmental Representative, when queried, did not raise any objection to the condonation of delay. 4. We note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471) has laid down that substantial

Archana Prashant Date, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 11(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 190/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Sarang Gudhate
Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 48Section 50CSection 54

informed that appeal before this Tribunal is time barred by limitation by 269 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit along with application for condonation of delay. After hearing both the sides and perusal of the averments made in the affidavit by the assessee, we find that assessee has filed application ... appeal has occurred. We find that assessee was prevented from filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit for ‘reasonable cause’. We therefore condone the delay of 269 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication in light of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court

Swastik Properties & Developers, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bengaluru

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes with the above directions

ITA 968/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Shivakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A

/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 6 5. There is delay of 147 days in filing of the appeal. Assessee has furnished a petition for condonation of delay stating that the Director of the assessee company was unwell for a long time and therefore it could not file the appeal in time ... sufficient cause for delay in filing of the appeal which may be condoned. 6. The Ld DR vehemently objected to the condonation of delay petition stating that there is no sufficient cause shown by the assessee. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the reasons shown

Swastik Properties & Developers, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bangalore

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes with the above directions

ITA 967/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Shivakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A

/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 6 5. There is delay of 147 days in filing of the appeal. Assessee has furnished a petition for condonation of delay stating that the Director of the assessee company was unwell for a long time and therefore it could not file the appeal in time ... sufficient cause for delay in filing of the appeal which may be condoned. 6. The Ld DR vehemently objected to the condonation of delay petition stating that there is no sufficient cause shown by the assessee. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the reasons shown

Akola Trading Company LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2448/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

2448/Mum/2025 has been filed with delay of 159 days, ITA No. 2293/Mum/2025 has delay of 1 day. The assessee has filed applications seeking condonation of delay supported by Affidavit. It is the say of 2 ITA Nos. 2448 & 2293/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Akola Trading Company LLP vs. ITO the assessee ... being deliberate, should be condoned and the appeals be decided on merit. 3. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) opposed condonation of delay. 4. Having considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals

Akola Trading Company LLP (Successor of Akola Trading Company Pvt Ltd), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2293/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

2448/Mum/2025 has been filed with delay of 159 days, ITA No. 2293/Mum/2025 has delay of 1 day. The assessee has filed applications seeking condonation of delay supported by Affidavit. It is the say of 2 ITA Nos. 2448 & 2293/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Akola Trading Company LLP vs. ITO the assessee ... being deliberate, should be condoned and the appeals be decided on merit. 3. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) opposed condonation of delay. 4. Having considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals

Aha Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1340/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Aha Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Circle 6(1)(1), Unit No.404, New Udyog Mandir No.2 Aaykar Bhavan, Mogul Lane, Mahim West, Maharishi Karve Road, Vs. Mumbai-400016 New Marine Lines, Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcs 6404E Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (Cit- Dr) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT- DR)
Section 133ASection 147Section 263

needs to be stated that the present appeal has been filed with delay of 343 days. Assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay supported by a duly sworn affidavit. 4. It is the say of the assessee that the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act was sent ... deliberate act of negligence. AHA Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 5. Learned Departmental Representative (DR) strongly opposed the prayer for condonation of delay. 6. Having considered rival contentions and perused materials on record, we are of the view that the assessee has made out a case for condonation of delay. Therefore, being

Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd Unn, Shamli vs. ITO NFAC, NFAC Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 4056/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri J.N. Shukla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The ld. counsel for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay. 5. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders ... interest of justice and fair play, we restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and admit the appeal for fresh adjudication after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, The assessee is directed to produce all necessary

Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd Unn, Unn, Shamli vs. AO NFAC Delhi, NFAC New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 4035/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri J.N. Shukla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The ld. counsel for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay. 5. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders ... interest of justice and fair play, we restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and admit the appeal for fresh adjudication after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, The assessee is directed to produce all necessary

Jagdish Beniwal, Gandhidham vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Barmer

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

ITA 867/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Moved A Condonation Petition Explaining That The Delay Occurred Due To The Assessee Being Unaware Of The Status Of The Appeal Before The Cit(A) & The Lapse On The Part Of His Erstwhile Authorised Representative, Who Failed To Communicate The Outcome Or Advise Timely Further Action. It Was Submitted That The Assessee Had Re-Engaged Counsel Only After Becoming Aware Of The Adverse Order & Immediate Steps Were Taken Thereafter To Prefer The Present Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anuradha, Addl. CIT DR
Section 144

case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], wherein a liberal approach has been advocated in matters involving condonation of delay, particularly where the explanation is bona fide and absence of mala fides is apparent, we are inclined to condone the delay of 289 days