← 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

Pradyumna Kumar Tiwari Lh of Shri Govind Narain Tiwari, Jaipur vs. ITO, 1(2) Ward, Jaipur

In the result order of the Ld

ITA 899/JPR/2024[1951-52 to 1961-62 under the 1922 Act r.w. provisions of 1961 Act]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalpradyumna Kumar Tiwari, Lh Of Shri Govind Narain Tiwari, B-14, Shiv Marg Banipark, Jaipur 302 001 Pan No.: Aatpt 9641B ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT- Ld. DR
Section 220(2)Section 246Section 250Section 46

malafide at the end of the assessee in such delay. Further assessee does not look like a casual one were this condonation of delay can be denied. In view of the above the delay in the filing of appeals is condoned. 3. We have gone through the order

Pradyumna Kumar Tiwari, Jaipur vs. ITO 1(2) Ward, Jaipur

In the result order of the Ld

ITA 898/JPR/2024[1950-51 to 1962-63 under 1922 Act r.w. procedures of the 1961 Act]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalpradyumna Kumar Tiwari, Lh Of Shri Govind Narain Tiwari, B-14, Shiv Marg Banipark, Jaipur 302 001 Pan No.: Aatpt 9641B ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT- Ld. DR
Section 220(2)Section 246Section 250Section 46

malafide at the end of the assessee in such delay. Further assessee does not look like a casual one were this condonation of delay can be denied. In view of the above the delay in the filing of appeals is condoned. 3. We have gone through the order

Sant Harajindar Singh, Pilibhit vs. Income Tax Officerito-2(4), Pilibhit-1, Pilibhit

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

ITA 565/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrasant Harajindar Singh V. Income Tax Officer-2(4), Trilok Singh Santpipariya Pilibhit-1 Karam Puranpur, Pilibhit, Uttar Income Tax Office, Near Pradesh-262122. Lic Office, Awas Vikas Colony, Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh-262001. Pan:Dlmps4218F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(2)Section 69A

inordinate delay of 251 days. The relevant portion of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: - “2. Condonation of delay:- Appeal is late by 251 days. Appellant has cited reasons for condonation of delay in Column 15 of Form 35, which are reproduced as under ... delay is unintentional and due to non-awareness of the assessment order passed and due to ignorance of law, it is requested to condone the delay and oblige.” Page 3 of 8 3. Facts of the Case: The brief facts of the case as stated by the appellant is reproduced

Swastik Developers, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 955/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-2018 Swastik Developers The Ito, Ward-3(3)(5), 21, Swastik House Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H.Sardar Patel Stadium Ahmedabad. Pan : Acyfs 0641 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ar Assessee By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68Section 69

Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”], under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 18 days in filing the present appeal before. The assessee has filed ... explanation offered by the assessee is reasonable, plausible and duly supported by affidavit. The learned Departmental Representative has also not objected to the condonation of delay. 2.3 In view of the totality of the circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented

Sanjoy Kar, Tamluk vs. Assessing Officer, Haldia

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

ITA 1240/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata07 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1240/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sanjoy Kar Vs Ito Haldia Ratnali, Ward No.03, Radhaballavpur, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur-721627 Pan No. : Atvpk 8271 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Aman Uddin Mallick, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 10.05.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri Aman Uddin Mallick, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 675 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Accordingly, The Delay Of 675 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. It Was The Submission Of The Ld.Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed The Impugned Order Ex-Parte Without Affording Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. It Was The Prayer Of The Ld. Ar That If One More

For Appellant: Shri Aman Uddin Mallick, CAFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. DR

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 675 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons which are plausible and not found to be false. Accordingly, the delay of 675 days in filing the appeal by the assessee

Relax Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 45(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1231/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata07 Aug 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1231/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) Relax Tradecom Private Limited Vs Ito Ward-45(2), Kolkata C/O M/S Marodia Khanna & Associates, 62, Bansdroni Govt. Colony, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata Pan No. : Aadcr 6695 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ashok Barnwal, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 13.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Shri Ashok Barnwal, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 430 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Accordingly, The Delay Of 430 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. It Was The Submission Of The Ld.Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed The Impugned Order Ex-Parte Without Affording Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. It Was The Prayer Of The Ld. Ar That If One More

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Barnwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. DR

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 430 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons which are plausible and not found to be false. Accordingly, the delay of 430 days in filing

Anjaniputra Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 4(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1229/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata07 Aug 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1229/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) Anjaniputra Tie-Up Private Limited, Vs Ito Ward-4(3), Kolkata C/O M/S Marodia Khanna & Associates, 62, Bansdroni Govt. Colony, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata Pan No. : Aagca 4588 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ashok Barnwal, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 17.05.2024 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Shri Ashok Barnwal, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 308 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Accordingly, The Delay Of 308 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. It Was The Submission Of The Ld.Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed The Impugned Order Ex-Parte Without Affording Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. It Was The Prayer Of The Ld. Ar That If One More

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Barnwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. DR

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 308 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons which are plausible and not found to be false. Accordingly, the delay of 308 days in filing

Income Tax Officer-9(2)1, Mumbai vs. Blinding Edge Film Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 8/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 68

several attempts. 3. Another fact which has been noted that the appeal filed by the Revenue is delayed by 246 days. In the condonation of delay following reasons have been given

M/S First Stone, Mumbai vs. ITO - Circle 20(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4124/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am M/S First Stone, Income Tax Officer, Amrut Tower, Circle 20(1)(4), 247, Telang Road Matunga, Mumbai-400012 Vs. Mumbai

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Sr. DR

Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. There is delay of 564 days in filing the appeal. Having perused the application seeking condonation of delay and the accompanying affidavit, we are satisfied that delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause. Hence, we condone the delay and admit

Fortum India Private Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Tpo 1(2)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 345/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Pareekfortum India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1A, Vandana Building, Tpo-1(2)(2), 11 Tolstoy Marg, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccf0436G Assessee By : Ms. Arya Asopa, Ar Revenue By: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/08/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Arya Asopa, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 4Section 91(1)Section 92C

assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by Fortum India Pvt. Ltd filing a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration

Usha Garg, Dehradun vs. Income Tax Officer, Dehradun

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 77/DDN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 144Section 147Section 148

respectively. 2. There is a delay of 419 days in filing both the Captioned Appeals. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay contending that the Assessee has shifted her residence after the demise of her husband i.e. on 14/01/2011, all the correspondences have been done by UshaGarg ... mail on time due to demise of her family member, therefore, there is a delay in filing the captioned Appeals. Therefore, sought for condoning the delay. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay in filing the captioned

Usha Garg, Dehradun vs. Income Tax Officer, Dehradun

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 76/DDN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun06 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 144Section 147Section 148

respectively. 2. There is a delay of 419 days in filing both the Captioned Appeals. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay contending that the Assessee has shifted her residence after the demise of her husband i.e. on 14/01/2011, all the correspondences have been done by UshaGarg ... mail on time due to demise of her family member, therefore, there is a delay in filing the captioned Appeals. Therefore, sought for condoning the delay. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay in filing the captioned

Special Judge Assam Guwahati, Guwahati vs. ITO-TDS2, Guwahati

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 36/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Bhati, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT
Section 200A(1)Section 234ESection 250

reason that appeal was filed after a delay of approximately 7 years and 6 months and there was lack of sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We observe that, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ... assessee for delay in filing of the appeals as “not sufficient cause”. 6. We have considered the request of the Ld. AR for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and consider the case of the assessee on merit. After consideration of the request

Special Judge Assam Guwahati, Guwahati vs. ITO-TDS2, Guwahati

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 35/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Bhati, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT
Section 200A(1)Section 234ESection 250

reason that appeal was filed after a delay of approximately 7 years and 6 months and there was lack of sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We observe that, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ... assessee for delay in filing of the appeals as “not sufficient cause”. 6. We have considered the request of the Ld. AR for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and consider the case of the assessee on merit. After consideration of the request

Sofiqul Islam, North Lakhimpur vs. ITO, Ward North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 34/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

time barred by 383 days. ITA 33/Gty/2025 (quantum matter) will be taken as a lead case. The assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay as under: I.T.A. Nos. 33 & 34/GTY/2025 Sofiqul Islam “I Sofiqul Islam, son of Bassu Miyan, aged 46 years, resident of Bogolijan, North Lakhimpur ... affidavit are true to the best of my own knowledge and belief. 2.1 Considering the reasons given in the said petition, we hereby condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication. 3. ITA No. 33/Gty/2025 arises from order u/s 250 of the Act dated 31.10.23023, passed

Sofiqul Islam, North Lakhimpur vs. ITO, Ward North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 33/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

time barred by 383 days. ITA 33/Gty/2025 (quantum matter) will be taken as a lead case. The assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay as under: I.T.A. Nos. 33 & 34/GTY/2025 Sofiqul Islam “I Sofiqul Islam, son of Bassu Miyan, aged 46 years, resident of Bogolijan, North Lakhimpur ... affidavit are true to the best of my own knowledge and belief. 2.1 Considering the reasons given in the said petition, we hereby condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication. 3. ITA No. 33/Gty/2025 arises from order u/s 250 of the Act dated 31.10.23023, passed

Areca Global Associates Private Limited, Guwahati vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/GTY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: The

Section 154Section 250

delay in filing of the instant appeal with documentary evidence. The appellant in Form-35 had stated that it would file the condonation of delay petition and explain with reasons for filing the appeal in delay during the appellate proceedings, however, the appellant did not file any reasons ... view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to give sufficient reason. Since the condonation of delay is not granted, the Appeal filed is not maintainable on the grounds of delay.” 1.9 In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion

Pawan Communications Private Limited, Guwahati Assam vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Guwahati

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 283/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT for short hereafter] expired on 17.05.2024. There is therefore a delay of about 211 (two hundred eleven) days or more till date in submitting the appeal before the said learned Tribunal.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 253Section 36(1)(va)

explaining the cause of the delay in preferring the appeal after the expiry of the aforesaid time limit by way of petition for condonation of delay, as supported by a duly sworn affidavit. 4. That the aforesaid delay in submitting the appeal u/s 253 has arisen because of sufficient cause

Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur

ITA 390/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 390/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 69

assessee in the present case is delayed by 194 days. In this respect, Ld. AR representing the assessee has furnished an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit to substantiate the reasons for delay. Reason for delay is confronted to the Departmental Representative, who is, Dr. Priyanka Patel

Gaurav Agrawal Legal Heir of Santosh Kumar Agrawal, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Raipur

ITA 389/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 389/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 3Section 69

assessee in the present case is delayed by 12 days. In this respect, Ld. AR representing the assessee has furnished an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit to substantiate the reasons for delay. Reason for delay is confronted to the Departmental Representative, who is, Dr. Priyanka Patel