← 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

Samadarshan Trust, Gandhinagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 367/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Aug 2025

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

merits. 4. The appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.” 3. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 109 days in filing the appeal against the order rejecting approval under section Samadarshan Trust vs. CIT(E) Asst.Year

Sundeep Sethi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1248/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1248/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sundeep Sethi…….……………………………...………………..….……….Appellant 164, M. G. Road, Burra Bazar, Kol-7. [Pan: Alaps7114C] Vs. Ito, Ward-44(2), Kolkata ………..........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sima Das Biswas, Jcit-Sr.Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 11, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 20.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. At The Outset The Ld. Ar Stated That There Is A Delay Of 374 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Citing Reasonable Cause For The Belated Filing. We After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause In Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication On Merits. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015–16 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.12,79,510/-. Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee For The Reasons That The Assessee In Ei Schedule Of The Said Return Has Claimed Exempt Income Under The Head ‘Long Term Capital Gains’ From Transaction On Which Securities Transaction Tax Is Paid. In

Section 148Section 43(2)Section 68

stated that there is a delay of 374 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay citing reasonable cause for the belated filing. We after considering the submissions and materials on record, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by reasonable

Shree Karni Mata Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 1214/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 5Section 80G

Registry has informed that both the appeals filed by the assessee are barred by limitation by 94 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “1. Whereas the appeal for the rejection order under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) arising from ... Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 the Apex Court explained the scope of limitation and condonation of delay, observing as under: "The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time-limit fixed for approaching the Court

Shree Karni Mata Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptiion), Kolkata

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

ITA 1213/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 5Section 80G

Registry has informed that both the appeals filed by the assessee are barred by limitation by 94 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “1. Whereas the appeal for the rejection order under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) arising from ... Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 the Apex Court explained the scope of limitation and condonation of delay, observing as under: "The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time-limit fixed for approaching the Court

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Trinity Vintrade Private Limited, Kolkata

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1001/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1001/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata ………………...………………..….……….Appellant Vs. Trinity Vintrade Pvt. Ltd.………..........................…….........……...…..…..Respondent 2Nd Floor, Room No.22, 22 Canning Street, Kol-1. [Pan: Aadct2156P] Appearances By: Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 11, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 26.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013–14. 2. At The Outset, We Note That There Is A Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Citing Reasonable Cause For The Belated Filing. We, After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, Satisfy That The Revenue Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause In Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication On Merits. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013–14 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.70,440/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act For The Reason That A Sum Of Rs.8,00,056/- Was Transferred From One M/S Purayita Vanija Pvt. Ltd. To The Assessee’S Bank Account During The Year & Found That The Alleged

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

outset, we note that there is a delay of 69 days in filing the present appeal. The revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay citing reasonable cause for the belated filing. We, after considering the submissions and materials on record, satisfy that the revenue was prevented by reasonable

Assistantcommissionerof Incometax, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. M/S. Anubandh Financial Services Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2390/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 68

Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 83 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the Revenue stating as under: Dates Events /Reasons 03.07.2024 CIT(A) order received to the office of the Pr. CIT, Central - 2, Kolkata ... section 253 expires on 29.09.2024, there caused a delay in filling of this Appeal in 84 days. Therefore, it is requested to kindly condone the delay of 84 days in filing appeal for the sake of substantial justice.” 1.2. Considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated

Lake Chemicals Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 958/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Vishal S Rao, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT
Section 250Section 253(1)Section 253(5)

days and therefore the condonation petition supported by affidavit, has been filed, demonstrating the reasons for delay, as under: “APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL UNDER SECTION 253(5) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 I, Manoj Palrecha, managing director of M/s Lake Chemicals Private Limited (hereinafter referred ... Appellant' for brevity), The Appellant respectfully submits this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 253(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dated 25.03.2024, for the Assessment Year

Arka Eduserve Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 817/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 37

Commissioner on dated 27/04/2021, as against last date for filing the appeal was 04/12/2019. The Assessee therefore also filed an application for condonation of delay but the Ld. Commissioner declined to condone the delay of 539 days in filing of appeal before him. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee

Ashok Hadagali, Huvinahadagali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Hospet

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

ITA 1029/BANG/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Karthik Bogra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JClT (DR)
Section 144

view that the delay deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the delay of 1 day in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. Condonation of delay before the ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC: 6. We have carefully considered the assessee’s application and supporting affidavit. The assessee is a small trader

Rangaiah Ramanna, Tumakuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Tumkur

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 102/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Monish SowkarFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Ld
Section 115BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

malafide but infact, the same is based on the probable and plausible cause and thus leniency may be shown, while allowing the condonation of delay filed by the Assessee. 3. On the contrary, ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee by producing various judicial decisions including the decisions ... order and demonstrated the plausible and sufficient cause for the delay involved in filling of instant appeal and, therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay of 326 days. Hence the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. . Page 4 of 5 5. Coming to the merits

M/S. Karam Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA 2465/Mum/2025

ITA 2465/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S Karam Corporation Vs Ito, Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai Room No.326, 3Rd Floor 1504/1604, C-3 Wing Jatashankar Road, Lok Everest, Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station Mulund, Mumbai-400 080 Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Pan: Aapfk1086K Mumbai-400 703 Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashutosh DashFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

further stated that despite diligent efforts, the said legal consultant could not be traced, whereupon the partner himself executed the affidavit seeking condonation of delay. The Ld. DR did not raise any objection to the submissions of the assessee. Accordingly, the delay of 676 days is condoned, and the matter

Peach Tree Investments Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2000/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Singh, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41(1)

appeal without going into the merits of the case. 7. Before us, the appeal is barred by limitation. The assessee has requested for condonation of delay. The assessee has also filed an affidavit stating the reasons for delay. Considering the reasonableness in the delay, the delay is condoned

Ram Chander, Jhajjar vs. ITO, Ward 72(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3820/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahfuzur Rahman, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 69A

delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, assessee has filed the Application alongwith affidavit for Condonation of Delay supporting with its Affidavit stating therein the delay was occurred due to the fault on the part of the Authorised Representative, who could not inform ... records, I find that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeal, before the Tribunal, hence, I condone the delay in dispute in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, I find

Om Prakash, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3784/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2009-10 Om Prakash Vs. Ito, 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad Villge Ataur, Ator Nagla B.O. Ataur, Ghaziabad-201003, Noida (Pan: Boepp0588P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.08.2025 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR

delay of 160 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, assessee has filed the Application alongwith affidavit for Condonation of Delay supporting with its Affidavit stating therein that reasonable cause has been attributed in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, it was requested to condone ... records, I find that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeal, before the Tribunal, hence, I condone the delay in dispute in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceeded further. 4. It is noted that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal

Sri Guru Singh Sabha Central (Regd), Delhi vs. ITO Ward Exemp-2(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3750/DEL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2025

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President)

For Appellant: Shri Drona Negi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12A

delay of 370 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, assessee has filed the Application alongwith affidavit for Condonation of Delay supporting with its Affidavit stating therein the delay was occurred due to the reasons that its Chartered Accountant was ill for a long period ... records, I find that reasonable reason has been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeal, before the Tribunal, hence, I condone the delay in dispute in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceeded further. 4. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. Upon careful

Vikas Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3047/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3047/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2020-21) Vikas Tyagi, S/O Shri Satish Tyagi, Tehsil Modinagar, Ravli Kalam, Muradnagar, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Ghaziabad 201206, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Alwpt-0588-M बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1) ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Cgi-Ii, Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad 201002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri V. Raj Kumar, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 30/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 21.03.2025, For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Shri V. Raj Kumar, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Cit(A) Has Dismissed Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine On Account Of Limitation. There Was Delay Of 44 Days In Filing Of Appeal. The Assessee Had Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay Supported By Medical Records. The Cit(A) Without Appreciating The Reasons Explained By The Assessee Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal Dismissed Appeal Of The Assessee. He Submitted That The Delay

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 5

limine on account of limitation. There was delay of 44 days in filing of appeal. The assessee had filed an application seeking condonation of delay supported by medical records. The CIT(A) without appreciating the reasons explained by the assessee causing delay in filing of appeal dismissed appeal ... Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic

Bhojalram Urban Co Op Credit Society Ltd., Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1291/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsix Stict ./Ita No. 1291/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18)

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 254(1)Section 80P

appeal” At the outset, that the appeal filed late by 421 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by affidavit. The crux of the application lot delay is as under: 4. "2. In this regard, it is submitted that the NFAC ... same at the earliest. Hence, this appeal is immediately filed before Honourable Tribunal. My counsel advised us to file appeal with request for condonation of delay considering above bona fide facts. 3. We apologize for default on cur part & reque.it your kind & respectful honour to condone the delay in filing

Varghese Sebastian, Angamaly vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Aluva

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

ITA 494/COCH/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Varghese Sebastian .......... Appellant Moolan House Angamaly P.O., Angamaly, Ernakulam Dist. [Pan: Anxps 5743 C] Vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-3, Aluva Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena La, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.01.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is An Individual & E-Filed His Return Of Income On 16/10/2016 Declaring Income Of Rs. 17,33,590/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena La, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

outset, we find that there is a delay of 94 days in filing this appeal. The assessee filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that assessee was not aware of the order passed by the NFAC passed u/s. 250 of the Act and also due to technical ... averments made in the petition, not controverted by the Department, we are of the considered opinion, it is a fit case to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 94 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3 Varghese Sebastian

Punnayurkulam Service Co Operative Bank Ltd No P 417, Punnayurkulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Guruvayur

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

ITA 446/COCH/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm Assessment Year: 2023-24 Punnayurkulam Service Cooperative .......... Appellant Bank Ltd. No. P417, Punnayurkulam, Thrissur. [Pan: Aacap 6129 J] Vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-1, Thrissur. Appellant By: Shri Ramdas M, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.08.2025 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 20.05.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Cooperative Society Registered Under Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Its Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2023-24 Was Filed On 31/12/2020 Declaring Nil Income After

For Appellant: Shri Ramdas M, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 199(2)(b)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

appeal. 5. It is submitted that the appellant filed an application u/s. 199(2)(b) of the Act before the learned PCIT for condonation of delay and prayed that appeal may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned Sr.DR relied on the orders passed by the lower authorities ... date prescribed u/s. 139(1), would disentitle the assesse for deduction u/s. 80P. The Tribunal is not vested with the power to condone the delay in filing the return of income. Since the provisions of section 80AC are mandatory in nature, we have no hesitation in upholding the order

Tollygunge Estates (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 941/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 282

circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in liminie(sic) by not condoning the delay in filing appeal though there was a reasonable cause for the delay. 2. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case ... Addl/JCIT(A) which was filed with a delay of more than five years. The Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) considered the application seeking condonation of delay filed by the assessee in which it was submitted that the assessee did not receive the physical copy of the intimation and an affidavit was filed