← 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

Chathamangalam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Chathamangalam vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikode

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

ITA 76/COCH/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Chathamangalam Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Chathamangalam P.O., Nit, Kozhikode 673601 [Pan: Aabac5862C] Vs. Acit, Circle 2(1), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30.05.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Banking. The Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Filed On 12.03.2016 Declaring Income Of Rs. 94,93,792/- & The Same Was Claimed As Deduction U/S. 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Against The Said Return Of Income

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 80P

outset, there is a delay of 545 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay. The only reason given by the appellant is that the work was outsourced to an outside agency. No details, such as the name of the agency, evidence

Ravi Kumar Kandala, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(6), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 333/HYD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Apr 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Yadagiri Bhoopathi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V.M. Mahidhar, SR-DR
Section 245

that there is delay of 2913 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay along with an Affidavit explaining the reasons of such delay. The Affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay is to the following effect ... though unfortunate, do not justify such an extraordinary lapse of time. In the totality of the circumstances, we find no justifiable cause to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. As a consequence, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as time-barred

Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Uparwah, Rajnandgaon vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon

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

ITA 236/RPR/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.236/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Uparwah, Rajnandgaon-491 445 (C.G.) Pan: Aafas6023D

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR
Section 249(3)Section 250(4)

very outset, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation by not condoning the delay since sufficient cause was not established by the assessee in terms with Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ... assessee submitted that if one final opportunity is provided to the assessee, they will furnish all the relevant documents/evidences explaining the condonation of delay before the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. 6. The Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection as regards the contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel

The Simaliya Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Limited, Panchmahal vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Godhra

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

ITA 2442/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ananya Kulshresth, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 270ASection 69C

that there is a delay of 284 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining that the assessee being a rural milk co-operative society was not well- equipped to handle electronic communications

Jivanbhai Somabhai Patel, Unjha vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Patan

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2196/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri P F Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agarwal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 194QSection 199

assessee. 5. There is a delay of 204 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed condonation of delay along with Affidavit. The reasons stated by the assessee appears to be genuine, hence, the delay is condoned. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that

DE vs. Than Trust, Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1729/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Parin S Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agarwal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 234A

claim by the Revenue. Thereafter, the assessee trust filed rectification under Section 154 of the Act and subsequently filed Form 10B along with condonation of delay application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 4. The PCIT (Exemption) rejected the condonation application and therefore, the assessee filed the appeal

Jagruk Mahila Gramudhyog Sansthan, Aligarh vs. Commissioner Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 8948/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Jagruk Mahila Gramudhyog Commissioner Exemption Circle, Sansthan, Cgo Complex, Ghaziabad, Ews-22, Ada Colony, Vs Uttar Pradesh-201009 Ramghat Road, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh-202001 Pan-Aaaaj7483P Assessee Revenue Assessee By Ms. Madhulika Raghav, Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2026

Section 10BSection 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Income-tax Act; 1961. 5. That the Ld. CJT(A) has also erred in the fact that the appellant gets the condonation of delay of filing of Form 10B from the CIT (Exemptions), Lucknow under section 119(2)(b) via order No ITBA/COM/F/17 /2024-25/1074553867{1) dated 17.03.2025. 6. That ... heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute regarding the delayed filing of return and the condonation of delay in Form 10B granted to the assessee. It is not clear as to whether delayed filing of return attributable to prevailing covid pandemic

Ambey Enterprises, Delhi vs. Assessing Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 5505/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarambey Enterprises Vs. Assessing Officer 30/54 A 1St Floor Gali Ward 58(1) No.8, Vishwas Nagar Delhi Shahdara, Delhi 110032 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abdfa 0570D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

assessee. 7. Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, as assessee did not file any application for condonation of delay of 282 days in filing appeal and appeal in limine. 8. From examination of record, in light of aforesaid submission, it is crystal clear that ... appeal being barred by limitation as there was delay of 282 days in filing the appeal. Assessee did not file any application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal. Ld. AO had passed assessment order dated 13.12.2019 u/s 144 of the Act as assessee did not comply with notices

DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Shalimar Corp. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3068/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Rajani, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

appeal is allowed and ground 6 of the Revenue is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. 24. The Revenue has filed an application for condonation of delay of 20 days on the ground that the authorization to file appeal before the ITAT was received late. Having perused the application for condonation ... delay, we find that there is sufficient cause for filing the appeal belatedly. We, therefore, condone the delay. 25. The Revenue has taken the following Grounds of Appeal: Page 13 of 19 ITA No. 3068/DEL/2022 Shalimar Corp [A.Y. 2017-18) 1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Shalimar Corp Ltd, Lucknow vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2769/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Rajani, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

appeal is allowed and ground 6 of the Revenue is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. 24. The Revenue has filed an application for condonation of delay of 20 days on the ground that the authorization to file appeal before the ITAT was received late. Having perused the application for condonation ... delay, we find that there is sufficient cause for filing the appeal belatedly. We, therefore, condone the delay. 25. The Revenue has taken the following Grounds of Appeal: Page 13 of 19 ITA No. 3068/DEL/2022 Shalimar Corp [A.Y. 2017-18) 1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Bhawna Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-62(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 632/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarsmt. Bhawna Kapoor Vs. Acit Prop M/S Manish Circle 62(1) Handicraft 1196, Main Delhi Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adxpk 3853 F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ramesh Chander, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69A

Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 09.04.2026 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The application for condonation of delay of 349 days in filing the appeal and the appeal filed by the assesse is against the order dated ... which was dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2018. 4. Being aggrieved, appellant-assessee preferred present appeal. Being aggrieved, appellant-assessee preferred the application for condonation of delay of 349 days. Through application dated 27.05.2025 assessee preferred additional grounds of appeal. As per directions dated 15.10.2025, assessee submitted original and revised grounds

Kiran Wati, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 135 days in filing appeal and appeal filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 362/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarsmt. Kiran Wati, Vs. Dcit 2473/13, Goverdhan Central Circle Bihari Colony, Shahdara, Noida New Delhi 110032 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahnpk 8472 A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250(6)

Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 01.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 09.04.2026 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The application for condonation of delay of 135 days in filing appeal and the appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 06.07.2018 of the Ld. Commissioner ... which was dismissed vide order dated 06.07.2018. 5. Being aggrieved, appellant-assessee preferred present appeal. Being aggrieved, appellant-assessee preferred the application for condonation of delay of 135 days. Through application dated 06.04.2023 prayed for reasoned additional grounds as under:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Yuvradhani Agro & Developers Pvt Ltd, Yavatmal vs. ITO Ward-1, Yavatmal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 47/NAG/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.47/Nag/2026 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Yuvradhani Agro & Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt Ltd. Ward-1, Yavatmal G.No 68 Ralegaon, Yavatmal 445402, Maharashtra Pan: Aaacy5622R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms.Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 144Section 148Section 69A

which was delayed by 265 days. Majority of the delay pertains to covid-19 pandemic outbreak period. However, still ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal. I have gone through the contents of the application filed for condonation of delay before ld.CIT(A) and find that ... sufficient cause’ prevented the assessee to file the delay with delay. I therefore condone the delay before ld.CIT(A). 3. So far as merits of the case are concerned, assessee has contended that books of account are audited and source of alleged cash deposits is the business proceeds

Hameeclass Builders, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Parel

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

ITA 6859/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas MehendaleFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR. DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250

consider my above said submissions with sympathy and pardon me and my Firm Hameeclass Builders for the following. a. Admit the appeal by Condoning the delay of appx. 150 days in filing the same before Hon. ITAT, Mumbai, b. Consider my plea sympathetically and condone our various lapses mentioned above ... that full reliance may be kept on the aforesaid contents.” 6 3. We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag

Shabd Pratap Satsang, Shabd Pratap Ashram vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay. 2. Assessee’s adjournment prayer was rejected. Perused the records. Heard ld representatives for both the parties. 3. At the very outset it is noticed that first appeal was filed ... days, however, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within the prescribed period. Ld CIT(A), however did not find any sufficient cause to condone the said delay and dismissed

The Dalla Co Op Agri Multipurpose Society Limited, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-, Phagwara

ITA 593/ASR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 593/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Dalla Co-Op. Agri Vs. Ito, Ward (1), Multipurpose Society Ltd. C/O Phagwara. B.D. Bansal & Co. B-641, Ground Floor Near A Block Gurudwara Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. [Pan:-Aacat2201M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Lakshay Bansal, Ca Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.03.2026

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

order dated 28.02.2025, which has emanated from the order of AO, NEAC, passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B, vide order dated 06.05.2021. 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is belatedly filed by 90 (ninety days). The assessee has filed an application ... same explaining the delay of ninety days, required to obtain a password (through forget password mode), but in the interest of justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 2.3 However, we find that negligence on the part of the Secretary of the assessee

Parminder Singh Manes, Zira vs. Income Tax Officer, Ferozepur

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

ITA 925/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C.A. (Virtual)
Section 147Section 250

sufficient reasons for adjournment and as such the adjournment is rejected and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 3. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is filed belatedly by 88 (eighty-eight) days and the assessee has filed an application ... condonation of delay stating that since no physical order in first appeal has been served on him, he was not aware of the very existence of the order , because he is technically competent to access the portal and after being informed by his counsel , he took immediate steps to prepare

Ranjana Devi, Maur Mandi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Bathinda

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

ITA 410/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 410/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjana Devi, C/O Jishu Trading Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Co. Maur Mandi, Punjab. Bathinda. [Pan:-Alzpd4607L] (Appellant) (Respondent) None. Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr.

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 69A

dated 28.03.2023, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. I.T.A. No. 410/Asr/2025 2 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. Condonation of Delay: This appeal is filed belatedly by twelve days, the nominal delay in this case is condoned and the appeal admitted for hearing on merits. Substantial justice is more important than

S.S. Jain Sabha Golf Link, Ludhiana vs. CIT Exemptions, Jalandhar

ITA 482/ASR/2024[24-25]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2026

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 I.T.A. No. 482/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: N.A. 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is filed belatedly by 13 (thirteen) days and the assessee has filed an application ... because of improper signature. Subsequently, proper appeal memorandum has been filed on 23.08.2024 which was belated by 13 days and has prayed for condonation of delay in absence of any willful neglect or default on the part of the assessee. 3. Considering that sufficiency of reasons, we condone the delay

Bharat Kumar Agrawal, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Raipur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 110/RPR/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.110/Rpr/2026 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Bharat Kumar Agrawal Opp. Om Hospital, Purani Basti, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Acjpa4289L ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pendse, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2026 2 Bharat Kumar Agrawal Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250

No.110/RPR/2026 Before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals) In the matter of Shri Bharat Kumar Agrawal for AY 2022-2023 Affidavit for Condonation of Delay in filing before Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench against the order framed under section 250 dated ... Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.110/RPR/2026 3. The Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection regarding the condonation of delay. 4. Considering the contents of the condonation petition a/w. affidavit and relying on various judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji