“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

Shree Govardhan Seva Trust, Vadodara vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2106/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025

Bench: Us That Initially The Trustees Were Not Aware Of Passing Of The Order Being Unfamiliar With The Use Of Technology, The Order Being Served On Email, But, However, As Soon As They Were Informed By Their Counsel Of The Order By The Ld. Cit(E), The Assessee Immediately Took Pro-Active Steps & Filed Appeal Before Us, Though By A Slight Delay Of 16 Days.

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT.DR

Section 80GSection 80G(5)

active steps and filed appeal before us, though by a slight delay of 16 days. 3. Ld. DR though objected to the condonation of delay, but considering the smallness of the delay and further taking note of the fact that the assessee does not benefit by not filing appeal before ... passed by Ld.CIT(E) denying grant of approval u/s 80G of the Act, in the interest of justice, we consider it fit to condone the delay. Order was pronounced in the open Court. 4. The facts of the case reveal that the assessee had filed an application for approval under

Karmaveer Bhausaheb Hiray Nashik Jilha Krishi Audyogiksahakari Sangh Ltd. Krishi Bhavab, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Nashik

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

ITA 628/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Charuhas Dwarkanath UpasaniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(4)

delay of 157 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with a sworn affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. On perusal of the same, we are satisfied that the delay in filing of appeal ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and respectfully following the above decision(s) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we hereby condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the same for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether

Pearl Park Beach Resorts, Port Blair vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(4), Port Blair

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

ITA 1857/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

Registry has informed that both the appeals filed by the assessee are barred by limitation by 44 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “This is to bring to your notice that the appellate order was passed ... submit that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and therefore it is a fit case where the Hon'ble Tribunal should condone the delay for rendering substantive justice…..” 1.2. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

Geetha Selvam, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1319/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1319/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Geetha Selvam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.28, Sengundram, Anna Street, Non Corporate Ward 10(2), Redhills, Chennai 600 052. Chennai. [Pan:Avjpg1070A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 249 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 69

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 249 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee

Shri L. Uthayakumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1288/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1288/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri L. Uthayakumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 2B, 2Nd Street Extn, Jainagar, Ward 4(4), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan:Aaapu7318P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)18, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 247 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

year 2018-19. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 247 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee

Chourasiainfratech Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 317/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Y Pranay Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253(3)

short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2015- 16. 2. The assessee has filed applications by way of Affidavit seeking condonation of delay of 448 days in filing the appeal. Page 2 of 7 3. Considered the reason stated by the assessee along with the duly sworn Affidavit, which reads ... this Hon'ble appellate authority. 13. It is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble ITAT, Bengaluru Bench takes lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay of about 464 days in filing the present appeal against the order of assessment . Page 4 of 7 passed by the learned Assessing Officer

Chakka Sanjeeva Raidu, Ballari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 & Tps, Hosapete

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

ITA 1166/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Balchandran, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Ld. Standing

Section 250

observed that there is a delay of 404 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the Assessee by filing a petition for condonation of delay, has claimed as under: “1. The impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A) is dated, 12-02-2024 and therefore, the time-limit ... down the principle that the expression "reasonable cause" should be liberally construed so as to advance the cause of substantial justice. (ii). Non-condonation of delay has the undesirable effect of throwing out a meritorious case at the threshold, which should be avoided. It is for this reason that

St. Thomas Church, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 296/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 296/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2022-23) St Thomas Church V/S. Income Tax Officer 1, Church Road, बिाम (Exemptions) Ward 2(4), Goregaon (East), Mumbai Mumbai 400063 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai 400026. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4878R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Ms. Vasanti Patel-Adv राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel-AdvFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250

allowing benefit u/s 11(2) also does not arise. 5.3 The appellant was required to file petition before the jurisdictional Commissioner for condonation of delay in fling Form 10B and get the delay condoned by such authority. The appellant in its submission stated that although it had filed such petition ... with return of income is a procedural omission and cannot be an impediment in law in claiming the exemption, we allow this appeal condoning the delay in filing the Audit Report in Form No. 10B. However, we also upon condoning the delay, restore the matter to the file

Society for Advancement of Villagers Empowerment and Rehabilitation for All, Kolkata vs. ITO (Exemp) Ward-2(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2784/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrasociety For Advancement Of Vs. Ito (Exem), Ward 2(2) Villagers Empowerment, Pratyakshkar Bhawan C/O, M/S Salarpuria Spm Civic Centre, Jajodia & Co., 7, C.R. New Delhi - 110002 Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal – 700 072 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacas3377F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Jhajharia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

Society for Advancement of Villagers Empowernment (AY: 2015-16) 2. The appeal is barred by limitation in support of which an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee before us by which it has been explained by the assessee that the order impugned dated 26.06.2023 passed

DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

ITA 886/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

sufficient cause which was beyond the control of the assessee. 5. We have heard both the counsels on the issue of condonation of delay. In our considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the cross objections. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the cross

DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

ITA 885/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

DCIT, CC-01, New Delhi vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

ITA 884/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

ITA 6053/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Mukul Garg, Haridwar vs. ITO, Roorkee

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 32/DDN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 32/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2021-22) Mukul Garg, Vs. Income Tax Officer 383/1, Jadugar Road, Civil Roorkee Lines, Roorkee H. O., Uttarakhand Haridwar, Uttarakhand, India, 247667 Pan: Afdpg7612J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Sahni, Ca Revenue By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

Section 154Section 154A

present Appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erroneously dismissed the Appeal without condoning the delay in latches in filing the first appeal and the order impugned is against principals of natural justice. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that ... dated29/07/2022, the Assessee preferred Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 514 days. The Assessee in his application for condonation of delay filed before the Ld. CIT(A) assigned following reason:- ‘we had accepted addition for Rs. 36190/- and had deposited due tax on it along with

V S Dempo Holdings Private Limited, Panaji-Goa vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle One

ITA 146/PAN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 146/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 V. S. Dempo Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Dempo House, Campal, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaace4220P . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rohan Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1074798262(1) Dt. 21/03/2025 Passed By Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Hyderabad, [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Dt. 25/10/2020 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru [‘Ld. Cpc’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2019-20 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Rohan Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 249Section 250

file to Ld. NFAC at the stage of its institution with a direction to deal therewith de-novo and decide on (i) condonation of delay in instituting appeal u/s 246A of the Act & consequential admission or dismissal of appeal (ii) if admitted deal therewith de-novo on merits in accordance

Sumitra Ningappa Gudi, Belagavi vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Belagavi

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

ITA 114/PAN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.114/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2015-16) Sumitra Ningappa Gudi, Vs. I T O, A/P Neginhal, National E Assessment Bailhiongal, Centre, Belgaum-591102, Delhi. Karnataka. Pan .No.Bozpg0104F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 144

assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filling the appeal and sustaining the addition u/se 69Aof the Act by the Assessing Officer. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee ... appeal before the CIT(A) and there was a delay of 57 days in filling the appeal. Whereas the CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and has dismissed the assessee appeal in limine. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)order, the assessee has filed an appeal before

Sankar Charan Marandi, Mayurbhanj vs. ACIT, Baleshwar

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

ITA 409/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.409/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sankar Charan Marandi Vs Acit, Baleswar Sukhuapada, Kuliana, Mayurbhnaj-757030 Pan No. : Ahxpm 6042 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2024 Passed In Appeal No.Cit(A),Cuttack/10628/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 172 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 172 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Even The Case Was Called For Hearing. Shri Vijay Singh, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

appeal of the assessee is barred by 172 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 172 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee even the case was called for hearing. Shri Vijay Singh, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf

Baner Service Cooperative Society Limited, Kalahandi vs. ITO, Bhawanipatna Ward, Bhawanipatna

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

ITA 403/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.403/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Baner Service Cooperative Vs Ito, Bhawanipatana Ward, Society Limited Bhawanipatana Village-Baner, Jaipatana, Dist : Kalahandi-766018 Pan No. : Aabab 3113 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Agrawal Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Agrawal CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr.DR

appeal of the assessee is barred by 352 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 352 days in 2 filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal

Sagar Mining and Metals Industries Private Limited, Keonjhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Keonjhar Ward, Keonjhar

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

ITA 398/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.398/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Sagar Mining & Metal Vs Ito, Ward Keonjhar Industries Private Limited, Near St. Teresa School, Sbi Road Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Pan No. : Aalcs 1743 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

appeal of the assessee is barred by 102 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 102 days in 2 filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing

Milan Kumar Sahoo, Keonjhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Keonjhar

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

ITA 397/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.397/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Milan Kumar Sahoo, Vs Ito Keonjhar Naranpur, Keonjhar, Odisha Pan No. :Bplps 3631 G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024 Passed In Appeal No.Cit(A), Cuttack/10502/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 160 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 160 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr.DR

appeal of the assessee is barred by 160 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 160 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue