“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

The Borivali Ashwini Co Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 4169/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan1. Ita No. 4168/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 4169/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 4170/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2015-16) The Borivali Ashwini Co- Operative Housing Society Ltd. Ito Ward 42(1)(5), Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Cts No. 360, Eksar Road, Borivali Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051. (West), Mumbai-400 092 Pan: Aaaat7928B (Appellant) Assessee Represented By Department Represented By Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement (Respondent) : Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ld. Ar Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (Sr. Dr.) : : 12.08.2025 18.08.2025 Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan (Ј.М.): 1. These Appeals Are Filed By The Appellant/Assessee Against The Common But Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

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

dismissed the appeals as time barred and has not decided the matter on merit. The appellant has filed an application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals for AY 2012-13 as 4265 days delay, for AY 2013-14 as 3744 days delay ... examined the record. At the outset, Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee submitted that the application for seeking condonation of delay was filed alongwith affidavit giving details and the reasons for which the assessee could not file the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who was pleased to refuse

The Borivali Ashwini Co Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 4168/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

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

Bushra Suhail Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -22(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 1 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3351/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Blebushra Suhail Shaikh Ito, Ward-22(1)(6), Mumbai Flat No. 301, Cadel Queen, A- Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Wing, S.V.S. Marg, Cadel Road, Vs Mumbai – 400012. Mahim West, Mumbai-400016. [Pan: Dsjps1674C] (Appellant) (Respondent ) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ca Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Department Represented By : Date Of Institution : 13.05.2025 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement Of Order : 18.08.2025

Section 254(1)Section 271ASection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(x)Section 68

before Tribunal only on 13.05.2025, thus, there is delay of 236 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along with her affidavit. 5. I have heard the submission of ld. authorised representative (ld. AR) and the learned senior departmental representative ... revenue. In support of condonation of delay, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order on 19.09.2024. The assessee was not aware about passing of the impugned order. Notice of hearing of appeal

Meena Kishore Sawant, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3306/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 250

submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for. 3. CONDONATION OF DELAY 3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not admitting the appeal and not condoning the delay. 3.2 While doing so, the Ld. CIT (A) failed ... deleted. There was an inordinate delay of 2297 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. The assessee is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal. 3. We heard

DB (International) Stock Brokers Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-18, Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 5876/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

appeals in the event assessee’s declaration made under VSVS is not accepted, the Registry shall not insist for filing of application for condonation of delay, if the Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order is filed beyond time on account of delay in communication of outcome under VSVS. [Revenue

DB (International)Stock Brokers Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-18, Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 5875/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Rajesh Singh Negi, Nanital vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3)(1) Nanital, Nanital

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 92/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Rajesh Singh Negi, Ward-2(3)(1), House No.50, Vs. Nanital. Jind State, Ward No.3, Nainital, Uttarakhand-263136 Pan-Aakpn3462D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ca Department By Shri Aman Pal Singh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/08/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10008911 Dated 13.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, From The Perusal Of The Appellate Order, It Is Seen That The Appeal Is Filed Delayed By 193 Days, For Which Delay Condonation Petition Along With An Affidavit Of Assessee Is Filed. In The Said Petition It Is Stated That The Assessee Was Under Bonafide Rajesh Singh Negi Vs. Ito Impression That The Counsel Of The Assessee Who Was Handling The Appeal Was Taken Care Of The Appellate Proceedings. However, Counsel Had Not Communicated The Status Of The Appeal, Therefore & When The Assessee Pursued Him, It Has Come To The Knowledge That The Appeal Was Already Dismissed Ex-Parte By Ld. Cit(A). Thus, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal Had Occurred. It Was Further Submitted That The Delay Was Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate & Solely Due To The Failure On The Part Of The Counsel To Communicate The Status & Out Come Of The Appeal Before Cit(A) In Timely Manner, Therefore, The Assessee Requested For Condonation Of Delay. In This Regard Reliance Is Also Placed In The Case Of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 Scc 123 (Sc) & Collector Of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 Itr 471 (Sc).

Counsel to communicate the status and out come of the appeal before CIT(A) in timely manner, therefore, the assessee requested for condonation of delay. In this regard reliance is also placed in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 (SC) and Collector of Land ... Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR objected to the condonation of delay. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the application of the condonation petition filed by the assessee, we find that

Sri Sri Jadimahal Youth Club, Talakia vs. Commissioner-of-Income Tax(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 410/CTK/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.410/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2024-2025) Sri Sri Jadimahal Youth Club, Vs Cit(Exemption), Hyderabad At: Talakia, Po-Oupada, Via- Oupada, Dist-Balasore-756049 Pan No. : Aagts 5866 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ananta Narayan Singhbabu, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order, Dated 17.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Cit(Exemption), Hyderabad For The Assessment Year 2024-2025, Thereby Rejecting The Assessee’S Claim For Registration U/S.80G Of The Act. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 325 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Delay, Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, Delay Of 325 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Ananta Narayan Singhbabu, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 80G

appeal of the assessee is barred by 325 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR also did not raise any serious ... objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, delay of 325 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 2 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee had applied in Form 10AB seeking registration u/s.80G

M/S. Binapani Iron Store, Berhampur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Berhampur

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

ITA 339/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.339/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) M/S Binapani Iron Store, Vs Ito Ward-1, Berhampur At: Gate Bazar, Po/Ps:Aska Road Dist : Berhampur-760001 Pan No. : Aayfm 2901 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order, Dated 27.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 33 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Delay, Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, Delay Of 33 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

appeal of the assessee is barred by 33 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR also did not raise any serious ... objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, delay of 33 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 2 3. It was submitted by the ld AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing

Umiyaji Steel Industries, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

The appeal is DISMISSED

ITA 183/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

outset, that the appeal filed late by 294 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The application for delay is as under; “1. In the cave the appellate order u/s 250 of the Income ... situation and circumstances the delay has caused in filing of the appeal and the appellant most respectfully prays Hon'ble ITAT to kindly condone the delay in the interest of justice.” 4. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR stated that the email address mentioned in the web portal

Ranavav Madresa Charity Talimi Trust, Porbandar vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2, Rajkot

ITA 179/RJT/2025[2024-25]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot14 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(5)

outset, that the appeal filed late by 225 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The application for delay is as under; “Mahemad Munaf Gafar Shivani trustee of RANAVAV MADRESA CHARITY TALIMI TRUST, residing at Ranavav do solemnly declare ... Y.2024-25 Ranavav Madresa Charity Talimi Trust v. CIT(E) AR. In the interest of justice, we take a judicious view that we condoned the delay in filing appeal by 225 days. 7. Brief facts of the case that the applicant has filed an application for registration under section

Pareek Vikas Trust-Surat, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 394/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravikant Gupta, Ld.CIT(DR)

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

outset, that the appeal (ITA No. 393/Srt/2025) filed late by 694 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The relevant part of the application for delay is as under; “01. That I am president of PAREEK VIKAS TRUST ... received late by the Trust. If this amounts to DELAY in filing the APPEAL, the Trust pray and request for condoning the delay considering the particular facts of the matter. The delay was neither deliberate nor conscious. The Assessee trust is not benefited by delaying the Appeal. The TRUST assures

Pareek Vikas Trust-Surat, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 393/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravikant Gupta, Ld.CIT(DR)

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

Varudu Sujatha, Srikakulam Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

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

ITA 417/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 417/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Varudu Sujatha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Saravakota, Ward-1, Srikakulam Dist. Srikakulam. Pan: Agypv1948A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14/08/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)

belatedly with a delay of 167 days. 3 Varudu Sujatha 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay 167 days in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee ... facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the delay of 167 days in filing the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,80,210/- made

Thumboor Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Thrissur

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

ITA 439/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Thumboor Multipurpose Co-Op. Society Ltd. .......... Appellant Vellangallur, Thumboor P.O., Thrissur 680662 [Pan: Aaeat8193N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Arun Raj, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.08.2025 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 21.06.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Multipurpose Of Co-Operative Society. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 21.06.2018 Disclosing Nil Income. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Thrissur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

that there is a delay of 286 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 appellant was not aware of the hearing notices issued ... 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 3 Thumboor Multipurpose Co-op. Society Ltd. contrary, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant society

Payyoli Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Payyoli, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 437/COCH/2025[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Payyoli Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Preambra Road, Payyoli, Kozhikode 673522 [Pan: Aabap7021Q] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wd-2(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Sujit Kumar T.N., Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.08.2025 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 17.05.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Return Of 2 Payyoli Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income For Ay 2018-19 Was Filed On 29.10.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 76,180/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 01.06.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At Total Income Of Rs. 8,25,31,608/-. While Doing So, The Ao Disallowed The Claim For Deduction U/S. 80P Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sujit Kumar T.N., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 80P

outset we find that there is a delay of 676 days in filing the appeal. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay by stating that the delay had occurred, due to the outbreak of Covid 19 pandemic, which affected the Secretary of the Bank and many other officials ... explain the reasons for the delay with evidence. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to condone the delay of 676 days. Keeping in view the decision of the 3 Payyoli Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

Krishna Bothra, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed as per the

ITA 556/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

short, 'the Act’). 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 616 days in filing of the present appeal. Application for condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. A perusal of the same indicates that the delay has arisen on account of two reasons; firstly ... diagnosed for cancer and later on, he expired on 29/03/2024. 3. After hearing the Departmental Representative and carefully going through the application for condonation of delay, I find that the assessee has been prevented with sufficient cause and, therefore, taking liberal and justice oriented approach, I hereby condone the delay

Jyoti Sharma, Pinjore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Panchkula

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

ITA 192/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application Rejected)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 245Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty under section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(d) of the Act and in those matters, similar reasons were submitted seeking condonation of delay and the reasons were found reasonable for condoning the delay and delay was condoned by the Ld. CIT(A). However, when it comes ... mater under consideration, the Ld. CIT(A) has taken a different approach and has dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay. It was accordingly submitted that the said action of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law. 4. In the instant case, I find that there

Kuldeep Singh, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Chandigarh

In the result, Grounds No

ITA 187/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

pointed out by the Registry. 3. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that assessee has moved an application seeking condonation of delay and has also filed an Affidavit. It was further submitted that the Affidavit of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee engaged in filing the present

Agry Business Centre, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(9), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 944/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalagry Business Centre, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Limbada Hanubhana, Ward-1(9), Umarala, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar-364740. [Pan :Aaofa1500 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Thakkar, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 147

Commissioner (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant and rejecting the request for condonation of delay without considering the totality of the fact of the case. 2. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)_National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in not disposing