← 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

S B Construction, Angul vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 396/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.396/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) S B Construction Vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar Karadei, Bijigol, Talcher,Angul 759117 Pan No. : Aawfs 7521 A (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 132 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 132 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

Kali Prasanna Parida, Paradeep vs. ITO, Ward, Paradeep

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

ITA 395/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.395/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Kali Prasanna Parida Vs Ito, Paradeep Ward, Paradeep Baingol Tentukipada, Paradeep, Jagatsinghhpur, 754136 Pan No. : Caapp 4198 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Biswaraj Raul, 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 Biswaraj Raul, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

appeal of the assessee is barred by 404 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 404 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

Shahulhameed Thaha, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 499/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shahulhameed Thaha, .......... Appellant Tc 18/1937, Varuvilakathu Veedu, Thirumala Po, Trivandrum [Pan: Adjpt 6999 H] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Thiruvananthapuram .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Sreeram Shekar, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.81.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Shekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 148

assessment order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 156 days. The learned CIT(A) refused to condone the delay by holding that appellant had not shown sufficient reason for delay. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present ... outset, I find that the present appeal is filed with a delay of 251 days. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that appellant is suffering from serious heart ailment and medical certificate in this regard also enclosed. In these circumstances

Thrissur District NRI Service Co-Operative Society, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as premature

ITA 909/COCH/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 119(2)(b)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

since filed a petition before the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, seeking condonation of delay for filing the return and requesting that the return be accepted. It was further submitted that the assessee has now filed the return of income claiming

Green Minded Fooundation, Bawdi Bera vs. ITO Ward 4(1), Jaipur

The appeal is disposed of, for

ITA 579/JPR/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal, By Filing An Appeal On 12.04.2025.

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 12A(1)(ac)

barred by limitation, same having been filed 43 days after the prescribed period. On 13.08.2025, appellant-applicant has submitted an application seeking condonation of delay. Alongwith the application is an affidavit of Shri Narendra Singh Gehlot, who has testified the same as a director of the appellant-applicant. Surprisingly ... that none of the three notices could be responded. Accordingly, the only prayer made by Ld. AR for the appellant is that while condoning the delay in filing of the appeal, the matter may be restored to the files of Learned CIT(E) so as to enable the appellant

Radha Kamal Upadhyay, Lucknow vs. ACIT-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 616/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 68

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned ... Being satisfied with the reasons stated in I.T.A. No.616/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal; we condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. (C) In this case, the assessment order dated

Ambica Education Trust, Himatnagar vs. The ADIT, CPC Present Juris. the ITO, Exemption, Palanpur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 799/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 143Section 143(1)

well as Rectification Petition before Assessing Officer. Ld. Addl. CIT(A) held that being an appellate authority does not have the power to condone the delay in filing Form 10B, whereas the Administrative Commissioner is the Competent Authority u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act to condone the delay ... held as follows: 5. “…..the only question which falls for consideration is whether respondent committed an error in passing the order by not condoning the delay in filing Form No. 10B along with the return filed. In the decision of this Court in Sarvodaya Charitable Trust (supra) this Court

Ambica Education Trust, Himatnagar vs. The ADIT, CPC Present Juris. the ITO, Exemption, Palanpur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 798/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 143Section 143(1)

well as Rectification Petition before Assessing Officer. Ld. Addl. CIT(A) held that being an appellate authority does not have the power to condone the delay in filing Form 10B, whereas the Administrative Commissioner is the Competent Authority u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act to condone the delay ... held as follows: 5. “…..the only question which falls for consideration is whether respondent committed an error in passing the order by not condoning the delay in filing Form No. 10B along with the return filed. In the decision of this Court in Sarvodaya Charitable Trust (supra) this Court

Lakhubhai Nathubhai Sisodiya, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(3), Ahmedabad, Current ITO Ward 3(1)(2)

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

ITA 716/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

your appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay of 763 days in filing of the present appeal. In the Affidavit submitted by the assessee, Lakhubhai Nathubhai Sisodiya vs. ITO Asst. Year ... statutory right to appeal. Accordingly, in view of the hardship and inequity that would result from a rigid application of limitation, we hereby condone the delay of 763 days in filing the appeal On merits: 4. The brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee

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

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 353/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.353/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : N.A.

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 12A

Samaj Trust vs. The CIT(E) 2 2. The appeal is time-barred by 45 days. A separate application has been filed for condonation of delay, wherein it has been pleaded that the impugned order of the CIT(E) was received by the appellant on e-mail on 18/09/2023, which

Krutik Ashokkumar Parikh HUF, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1239/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(5)

note that there is delay of 363 days in filing of appeal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along-with an Affidavit. The delay in filing the appeal has been explained on account of the issuance of notices or order sent to previous authorized representative and assessee

Arifkhan Munirkhan Pathan, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1142/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal.” At the outset, we note that the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay of 568 days in filing of the present appeal. 3. Along with the appeal, the assessee has also filed a petition seeking condonation of delay ... considered view that the explanation offered by the assessee constitutes a reasonable cause for the delay. 5. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. On merits: 6. The brief facts of the case are that

Mohammed Salim Noorbhai Shaikh, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1141/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal.” At the outset, we note that the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay of 568 days in filing of the present appeal. 3. Along with the appeal, the assessee has also filed a petition seeking condonation of delay ... considered view that the explanation offered by the assessee constitutes a reasonable cause for the delay. 5. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. On merits: 6. The brief facts of the case are that

Shiva Kesava Mahasannidhanam Kokapeta, Ranga Reddy vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 930/HYD/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.929 & 930/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: Na) Shiva Kesava Vs. Cit (Exemptions) Mahasannidhanan, Hyderabad Kokapeta, R.R. Distt. Pan:Aamts0303E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ravindra Kumar Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 2 Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (Exemptions), Hyderabad Both Dated, 20/11/2024 Whereby The Application Of The Assessee For Registration U/S 12Ab & Approval U/S 80G(5) Of The I.T. Act Were Dismissed.

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Ravindra Kumar Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

dismissed. 2. There is a delay of 118 days in filing both the appeals by the assessee. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay which are supported by the affidavits of the assessee. Page 1 of 6 ITA Nos 929 and 930 of 2025 Shiva Kesava Mahasannidhanam ... have heard the learned Counsel for the assessee as well as the learned DR on the condonation of delay and carefully perused the reasons explained in the petition for delay in filing these appeals. The assessee has explained the cause of delay that the impugned orders passed

Shiva Kesava Mahasannidhanam Kokapeta, Ranga Reddy vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 929/HYD/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.929 & 930/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: Na) Shiva Kesava Vs. Cit (Exemptions) Mahasannidhanan, Hyderabad Kokapeta, R.R. Distt. Pan:Aamts0303E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ravindra Kumar Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 2 Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (Exemptions), Hyderabad Both Dated, 20/11/2024 Whereby The Application Of The Assessee For Registration U/S 12Ab & Approval U/S 80G(5) Of The I.T. Act Were Dismissed.

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Ravindra Kumar Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

dismissed. 2. There is a delay of 118 days in filing both the appeals by the assessee. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay which are supported by the affidavits of the assessee. Page 1 of 6 ITA Nos 929 and 930 of 2025 Shiva Kesava Mahasannidhanam ... have heard the learned Counsel for the assessee as well as the learned DR on the condonation of delay and carefully perused the reasons explained in the petition for delay in filing these appeals. The assessee has explained the cause of delay that the impugned orders passed

ITO., Ward-6(1), Hyderabad vs. Sudheer Raavi, Hyderabad

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

ITA 454/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Sri T Chaitanyakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

interest of justice. 3. Sri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee, on the other hand, strongly opposed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue within the prescribed time limit and submitted that, there is no ‘reasonable and sufficient cause’ to condone the delay ... condonation of 41 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. We are satisfied with the reasons explained by the Revenue and, therefore, condone the delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that

Rasaiyan Mariya Alasu Rajan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 997/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kumar Chandan, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

outset, we find that there is a delay of 403 days in the appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons for delay has been filed. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that

Duraisamy Rajeswari, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-3(1), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 673/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:673/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Duraiswamy Rajeswari, Ito, 17, Lakshmanan Nagar, Vs. Non-Corp Ward 3(1), 2Nd Street, Coimbatore. Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan:Afipr-0877-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. M. Mathangi, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Ms. M. Mathangi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

outset, we find that there is a delay of 4 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons. The assessee submitted an affidavit for the delay stating that the delay is caused due to ill health. After considering the petition filed

Gunapalan Mallinathan, Ranipet vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vellore

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

ITA 665/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 665/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2020-21 Shri Gunapalan Mallinathan, The Income Tax Officer, No.21, Kaviarasu Kannadasan Vs. Ward 2, Street, Vellore. Sriramnagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087. Pan: Adipm 2621A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 250

been filed before ITAT on or before 31.12.2024. However, the appeal was filed belatedly on 03.03.2025. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and also supporting affidavit stating there in the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated for belated filing of this appeal ... view that there is sufficient cause for belated filing this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay of 62 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows

Tirupur South Rotary Charitable Trust, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1553/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1553/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2022-23 Tirupur South Rotary Charitable Trust, Assistant Commissioner Of South Rotary Hall, Income Tax (Exemptions), Opp Nataraja Theatre, Tirupur, Coimbatore. Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641 604. [Pan: Aaett0308E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S.Bhupendran, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri S.Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

with Circular 2/2020. Given the non-compliance with statutory requirements, the appeal is dismissed for statistical purposes. The appellant is advised to seek condonation of delay before the CIT for necessary relief, if applicable which shall pave way for reconsideration of exemption claim of appellant. The Assessing Officer may revisit ... appellant's claim of exemption in accordance with disposal of condonation of delay petition by the Ld CIT….” 5.0 As per brief factual matrix of the case is that a disallowance of Rs. 19 lakhs u/s 143(1) was made by CPC vide its order dated 02.06.2023. The apparent reason