← 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

Shipij Rathore, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2), Indore

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

ITA 557/IND/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi**

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

filing present appeal. Having regard to the averments made by assessee/appellant in Para Nos. 5 to 7 of the application/affidavit filed for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause for occurrence of delay and that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. In view ... wherein it has been held that the "technical considerations" should not prevail over the cause of "substantial justice", we deem it fit to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 27 days in filing appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken for hearing. - 3. The background facts leading

Rajesh Kumar Rathore, Sehore vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 5, Sehore

ITA 535/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 253Section 69

provided vide section 249(2) on receipt of order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. - The appellant has sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order dated 06.03.2023, which was admittedly appealable up to 06.04.2023. The delay has been attributed ... jurisdictional tax authorities for recovery of demand. Thereafter, on consulting a tax professional, the appeal was filed along with a request for condonation of delay. While the appellant has placed reliance on his lack of education and knowledge of the proceedings, it is to be noted that under the Faceless

Rajesh Kumar Rathore, Sehore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Sehore

ITA 533/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 115BSection 147Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271ASection 274(2)Section 288ASection 69

provided vide section 249(2) on receipt of order u/s 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant has sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the penalty order Rajesh Kumar Rathore 6 ITA No. 533/Ind/2025 dated 25.09.2023, which was admittedly appealable ... jurisdictional tax authorities for recovery of demand. Thereafter, on consulting a tax professional, the appeal was filed along with a request for condonation of delay. While the appellant has placed reliance on his lack of education and knowledge of the proceedings, it is to be noted that under the Faceless

Kamlesh Motwani, Bhopal vs. DCIT-2(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 518/IND/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 253(5)

registry has informed that the present appeal is filed after a delay and therefore time-barred. The assessee has filed an application/affidavit for condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference: Page 2 of 7 Kamlesh Motwani ITA No. 518/Ind/2025 - AY 2016-17 AFFIDAVIT

Rajesh Gourishankar, Dewas vs. Officer, Dewas

ITA 377/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi**

Section 144Section 253(5)

registry has informed that the present appeal is filed after a delay and therefore time-barred. The assessee has filed an application/affidavit for condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference: ![](_page_1_Figure_2.jpeg) ![](_page_2_Figure_1.jpeg) 3. The averments made by assessee in above affidavit, which

Sheetal Nath Colonizers, Bhopal vs. ITO, 1(2), Bhopal, Aaykar Bhawan

In the result the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

ITA 1094/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisheetal Nath Colonizers, Ito 1(2) बनाम/ Plot No.48, M/S Sheetal Nath Bhopal Vs. Colonizers, Near Arya Bhawan, M. P. Nagar Zone Ii Bhopal (Pan: Abzfs4967L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 60

dismissal of the first appeal was as under: “5.7 From the above decisions it becomes clear that in the case of condonation of delay, where the appeal was filed beyond the limitation of period, the courts are empowered to condone the delay, provided that the appellant can prove his claim ... sufficient cause" which obstructed his action to file appeal, beyond the prescribed time limit. 5.8 In the present case, the appellant has sought condonation of delay in Form 35 stating "That the accountant of the assessee was not available. "The reason for delay in filing of appeal given

Mehulkumar Sanatkumar Gandhi, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal field by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 22/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Him Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), refusing to condone the delay of 187 days in fling appeal before him arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income ... appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. That on facts, the learned CIT has erred in not granting condonation of delay in filing of appeal on medical grounds which were duly explained along with supporting evidences. 2. That on facts, the learned CIT has erred by observing

Tharmiya Subramanian Ramila, Madurai vs. ITO, Ward-1(7), Madurai

ITA 3503/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3503/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Thamiya Subramanian Ramila, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 391, K.K. Nagar, 8Th East Street, Ward 1(7), Madurai 625 020. Madurai. [Pan:Aehpr1869M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Latchana, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 226 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The Reasons That She Is An Illiterate & Her Husband Has To Look After The Tax Matters

For Appellant: Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 54BSection 54F

year 2014-15. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 226 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that she is an illiterate and her husband has to look after the tax matters 2 I.T.A. No.3503/Chny/25 of the assessee ... filed complete medical records. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, etc., in the interest of justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and requires no adjudication. 4. Ground

Karam Korpom Foundation, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 2786/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2786/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: - Karam Korpom Foundation, Vs. The Commissioner Of Income 3Rd Floor, Vikram Nest, 14/19, Tax(Exemption), Vinayakam Street Near Narayani Chennai. Kalyana Mandapam, Raja Annamalaipuram S.O. Chennai 600 028. [Pan: Aadtk6044P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. R. Sridevi, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.06.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai In Rejecting The Application Filed In Form 10Ab Seeking Approval Under Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Ms. R. Sridevi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)

short]. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 39 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. 2 I.T.A. No.2786/Chny/25 Upon hearing both the parties and on an examination of the said affidavit, in the interest of justice, we condone

Hebbale Javarappa Santhosh Kumar, Praveen Wines I B Road, Kushalnagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Madikeri, Madikeri Karnataka

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

ITA 2071/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CA
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

order, had not considered about the said submissions dated 20/09/2025 which was uploaded on 22/09/2025 before rejecting the application for condonation of delay. From the paper book, we find that the said documents were not placed before the AO but filed before the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore ... doing the assessment in accordance with law. 9. We therefore set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) by condoning the delay in filing the appeal before it and also set aside the order of the AO dated 12/12/2019 and remit this issue to the file

Akansha Yogesh Deshmukh, Bpcl Staff Colony vs. ITO/DCIT International Taxation Mumbai, Income Tax Building

ITA 8949/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

Revenue authorities we noticed that the appeal filed by the Assessee before CIT(A) was delayed and in this regard Assessee has sought condonation of delay on which a detailed order has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A). The operative portion of the said order ... which are reproduced herein below: 1.2 It is proposed to first look at the statutory provisions governing the matter of condonation of delay Thereafter the specific facts of case including the reason/justification cited by the petitioner, would be examined in light of the statutory provisions. Finally, the broad principles

Mahendrakumar Danmal Mutha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7590/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(2)(2), Mumbailhereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer”], for Assessment Year 2010-11 Condonation of Delay 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 356 days in filing the present appeal before us. In order to seek condonation of delay ... been prayed that the delay of 356 days be condoned in the interest of justice. 3. The learned Departmental Representative objected to the condonation of delay on the ground that the delay is substantial and extends to almost one year. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused

Messe Frankfurt Trade Fairs India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Income Tax Department, Mumbai

ITA 6680/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6498/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. Ita No. 6680/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Messe Frankfurt Trade Dcit – 2(2)(1), Fairs India Private Income Tax Limited, Vs. Department, 501, 5Th Floor, Gala Mumbai-400 020 Impecca, Mumbai, Chakala Midc S.O, Mumbai-400 093. Pan/Gir No. Aabcm0696G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 270ASection 80G

before 26.12.2022. However, the present appeal has been filed after a delay of 1023 days. 3. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit sworn by its Director. In the affidavit, it is stated that after the learned CIT(A) partly allowed relief ... within limitation. 10. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee has failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. The application seeking condonation of delay in is therefore rejected. As a necessary consequence, the quantum appeal stands dismissed in limine as barred by limitation, without entering into or adjudicating

Messe Frankfurt Trade Fairs India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6498/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6498/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. Ita No. 6680/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Messe Frankfurt Trade Dcit – 2(2)(1), Fairs India Private Income Tax Limited, Vs. Department, 501, 5Th Floor, Gala Mumbai-400 020 Impecca, Mumbai, Chakala Midc S.O, Mumbai-400 093. Pan/Gir No. Aabcm0696G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 270ASection 80G

before 26.12.2022. However, the present appeal has been filed after a delay of 1023 days. 3. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit sworn by its Director. In the affidavit, it is stated that after the learned CIT(A) partly allowed relief ... within limitation. 10. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee has failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. The application seeking condonation of delay in is therefore rejected. As a necessary consequence, the quantum appeal stands dismissed in limine as barred by limitation, without entering into or adjudicating

The Sonmrug Co-Operative Hsg Society Limited, Pedder Road vs. CIT(Appeal), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine

ITA 2797/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarwith With With Sonmrug Co-Operative Vs. Cit(A) Housing Society Ltd Kautilya Bhavan 62Cc Sunita Apartment Mumbai, Pedder Road, Behind Mount Mumbai - 400012 Unique, Mumbai - 400036 Pan/Gir No. Aabat0916G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pawan Choudhary Revenue By Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 2794/Mum/2025, A.Y 2012-13 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 80P

grounds are reproduced below: “Ground of Appeal: We have already filed an affidavit explaining reason for late filing of an appeal request for Condonation of Delay: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has completely ignored on the merit ... beyond the period of limitation and there was also delay of 3615 days. 4. On perusal of the application, filed with regard to condonation of delay we find that the only reason mentioned in the application for seeking condonation of delay is that there was dispute between the ex-committee

The Sonmrug Co-Operative Hsg Society Limited, Pedder Road vs. CIT(Appeal), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine

ITA 2796/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarwith With With Sonmrug Co-Operative Vs. Cit(A) Housing Society Ltd Kautilya Bhavan 62Cc Sunita Apartment Mumbai, Pedder Road, Behind Mount Mumbai - 400012 Unique, Mumbai - 400036 Pan/Gir No. Aabat0916G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pawan Choudhary Revenue By Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 2794/Mum/2025, A.Y 2012-13 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 80P

grounds are reproduced below: “Ground of Appeal: We have already filed an affidavit explaining reason for late filing of an appeal request for Condonation of Delay: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has completely ignored on the merit ... beyond the period of limitation and there was also delay of 3615 days. 4. On perusal of the application, filed with regard to condonation of delay we find that the only reason mentioned in the application for seeking condonation of delay is that there was dispute between the ex-committee

Sonmrug Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Pedder Road vs. CIT(Appeal), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine

ITA 2795/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarwith With With Sonmrug Co-Operative Vs. Cit(A) Housing Society Ltd Kautilya Bhavan 62Cc Sunita Apartment Mumbai, Pedder Road, Behind Mount Mumbai - 400012 Unique, Mumbai - 400036 Pan/Gir No. Aabat0916G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pawan Choudhary Revenue By Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 2794/Mum/2025, A.Y 2012-13 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 80P

grounds are reproduced below: “Ground of Appeal: We have already filed an affidavit explaining reason for late filing of an appeal request for Condonation of Delay: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has completely ignored on the merit ... beyond the period of limitation and there was also delay of 3615 days. 4. On perusal of the application, filed with regard to condonation of delay we find that the only reason mentioned in the application for seeking condonation of delay is that there was dispute between the ex-committee

Sonmrug Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Pedder Road vs. CIT(Appeal), Mumbai

ITA 2794/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 80P

grounds are reproduced below: "Ground of Appeal: We have already filed an affidavit explaining reason for late filing of an appeal request for Condonation of Delay: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has completely ignored on the merit ... beyond the period of limitation and there was also delay of 3615 days. 4. On perusal of the application, filed with regard to condonation of delay we find that the only reason mentioned in the application for seeking condonation of delay is that there was dispute between the ex-committee

Uday Venture, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 824/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Raipur18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.824/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Uday Venture Singhania Bhawan, Subhash Road, Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aadfu7600D

For Appellant: None (petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 249(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

very outset, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 1058 days. That as discernable from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, sufficient cause in accordance with Section ... justice, we allow one final opportunity to the assessee to present relevant evidence/documents before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC explaining the reasons for condonation of delay and after going through those evidences, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall specifically decide whether such delay can be condoned as per Section

Gaurav Bhattar, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 792/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.792/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Gaurav Bhattar M/S. Shree Ram Auto, Lawan Road, Near Anand Talkies, Baloda Bazar-493 332 (C.G.) Pan: Aedpb4738F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

this order: 3 Gaurav Bhattar Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection regarding condonation of delay involved in the present appeal. 5. Considering the contents of the delay condonation petition and the affidavit filed by the assessee and the submissions