← 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

Maheshbhai Sumatbhai Basiya, Junagadh vs. ITO, Ward-2, Junagadh

ITA 400/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 400/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18)

Section 144Section 250

outset, that the appeal filed late by 346 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The relevant part of the application for delay is as under; “2.0 That the assessment in case of assessee was finalized vide order u/s.144

Shri Ashokbhai Devjibhai Patel, Mitana, Dist. Morbi vs. The ITO Ward 2 (1) (1) Rajkot, Rajkot

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 243/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 243/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Ashokbhai Devjibhai Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wd – 2(1)(1), C/O. M/S. Jay Ganesh Petroleum, Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Mitana-Morbi – 363611 Rajkot-1 Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acnpp7584K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 44A

outset, that the appeal filed late by 47 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The crux of the application for delay is as under; “2. The assessee is staying outside Mitana. The affairs of the assessee were managed ... case. After considering the reason explained by the Ld. AR. In the interest of justice, we take a judicious view that we condoned the delay in filing appeal by 47 days. 6. Brief facts of the case that the assessee filed his return of income showing total income

Kalpeshbhai Busa, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(10), Jamnagar

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

ITA 104/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Kalpeshbhai Busa Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wd – 2(10), Nr. Primary School, Village – Bavaria, Jamnagar – 361001 Gujarat – 361012 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cjdp5832K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shrisanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: ShriSanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

hereby dismissed. 5. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.” 5. That the assessee filed an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, against the impugned order dated 19.10.2023 before the Tribunal. 6. At the outset, that the appeal filed late by 421 days ... assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The crux of the application for delay is as under; “3. That the delay was occurred due to unawareness of passing online order by Ld. CIT(A). 4. Appeal was immediately filed on gaining of knowledge of passing

Paritosh Kumar Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (5), Patna

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

ITA 277/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata) आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.273 To 277/Pat/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Ayrs : 2010-2011 To 2014-2015) Paritosh Kumar Singh, Vs Ito Ward-6(5), Patna Flat No.304, Maa Vindhyavasini Apartment, Sekhpura, Bailey Road, Patna-800014 Pan No. :Bfkps 9811 P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R These Five Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Id. Cit(A), Patna-2, All Dated 29.05.2019 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015, Respectively. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. All The Five Appeals Of The Assessee Are Barred By 2196 Days Each. In This Regard, An Application Has Been Filed By The Assessee Stating Therein That The Counsel Who Was Looking After The Tax Matter Of The Assessee Died During The Covid Period & The Assessee When Came To Know That The Appeal Has To Be Preferred Against The Assessment Order, Immediately Consulted Another Counsel Who Filed The Appeals Having The Delay Of 2196

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.DR

consulted another counsel who filed the appeals having the delay of 2196 2 ITA Nos.273-277/PAT/2025 days each. The contents of the application for condonation of delay are as under :- 4. A perusal of the application filed by the assessee regarding condonation of delay, I found that the reasons for delay

Paritosh Kumar Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (5), Patna

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

ITA 276/PAT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata) आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.273 To 277/Pat/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Ayrs : 2010-2011 To 2014-2015) Paritosh Kumar Singh, Vs Ito Ward-6(5), Patna Flat No.304, Maa Vindhyavasini Apartment, Sekhpura, Bailey Road, Patna-800014 Pan No. :Bfkps 9811 P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R These Five Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Id. Cit(A), Patna-2, All Dated 29.05.2019 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015, Respectively. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. All The Five Appeals Of The Assessee Are Barred By 2196 Days Each. In This Regard, An Application Has Been Filed By The Assessee Stating Therein That The Counsel Who Was Looking After The Tax Matter Of The Assessee Died During The Covid Period & The Assessee When Came To Know That The Appeal Has To Be Preferred Against The Assessment Order, Immediately Consulted Another Counsel Who Filed The Appeals Having The Delay Of 2196

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.DR

consulted another counsel who filed the appeals having the delay of 2196 2 ITA Nos.273-277/PAT/2025 days each. The contents of the application for condonation of delay are as under :- 4. A perusal of the application filed by the assessee regarding condonation of delay, I found that the reasons for delay

Paritosh Kumar Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (5), Patna

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

ITA 275/PAT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata) आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.273 To 277/Pat/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Ayrs : 2010-2011 To 2014-2015) Paritosh Kumar Singh, Vs Ito Ward-6(5), Patna Flat No.304, Maa Vindhyavasini Apartment, Sekhpura, Bailey Road, Patna-800014 Pan No. :Bfkps 9811 P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R These Five Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Id. Cit(A), Patna-2, All Dated 29.05.2019 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015, Respectively. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. All The Five Appeals Of The Assessee Are Barred By 2196 Days Each. In This Regard, An Application Has Been Filed By The Assessee Stating Therein That The Counsel Who Was Looking After The Tax Matter Of The Assessee Died During The Covid Period & The Assessee When Came To Know That The Appeal Has To Be Preferred Against The Assessment Order, Immediately Consulted Another Counsel Who Filed The Appeals Having The Delay Of 2196

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.DR

consulted another counsel who filed the appeals having the delay of 2196 2 ITA Nos.273-277/PAT/2025 days each. The contents of the application for condonation of delay are as under :- 4. A perusal of the application filed by the assessee regarding condonation of delay, I found that the reasons for delay

Paritosh Kr Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (5), Patna

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

ITA 274/PAT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata) आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.273 To 277/Pat/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Ayrs : 2010-2011 To 2014-2015) Paritosh Kumar Singh, Vs Ito Ward-6(5), Patna Flat No.304, Maa Vindhyavasini Apartment, Sekhpura, Bailey Road, Patna-800014 Pan No. :Bfkps 9811 P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R These Five Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Id. Cit(A), Patna-2, All Dated 29.05.2019 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015, Respectively. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. All The Five Appeals Of The Assessee Are Barred By 2196 Days Each. In This Regard, An Application Has Been Filed By The Assessee Stating Therein That The Counsel Who Was Looking After The Tax Matter Of The Assessee Died During The Covid Period & The Assessee When Came To Know That The Appeal Has To Be Preferred Against The Assessment Order, Immediately Consulted Another Counsel Who Filed The Appeals Having The Delay Of 2196

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.DR

consulted another counsel who filed the appeals having the delay of 2196 2 ITA Nos.273-277/PAT/2025 days each. The contents of the application for condonation of delay are as under :- 4. A perusal of the application filed by the assessee regarding condonation of delay, I found that the reasons for delay

Paritosh Kumar Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (5), Patna

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

ITA 273/PAT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata) आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.273 To 277/Pat/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Ayrs : 2010-2011 To 2014-2015) Paritosh Kumar Singh, Vs Ito Ward-6(5), Patna Flat No.304, Maa Vindhyavasini Apartment, Sekhpura, Bailey Road, Patna-800014 Pan No. :Bfkps 9811 P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R These Five Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Id. Cit(A), Patna-2, All Dated 29.05.2019 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015, Respectively. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. All The Five Appeals Of The Assessee Are Barred By 2196 Days Each. In This Regard, An Application Has Been Filed By The Assessee Stating Therein That The Counsel Who Was Looking After The Tax Matter Of The Assessee Died During The Covid Period & The Assessee When Came To Know That The Appeal Has To Be Preferred Against The Assessment Order, Immediately Consulted Another Counsel Who Filed The Appeals Having The Delay Of 2196

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.DR

consulted another counsel who filed the appeals having the delay of 2196 2 ITA Nos.273-277/PAT/2025 days each. The contents of the application for condonation of delay are as under :- 4. A perusal of the application filed by the assessee regarding condonation of delay, I found that the reasons for delay

Manoj Kumar Sachdeva, Kharghar vs. Dc/Ac Circle-4, Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 185/PAT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata) आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.185/Pat/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-2010) Manoj Kumar Sachdeva, Vs Dc/Ac, Circle-4, Patna 201 A Wing, Neel Sidhi Ornate, Plot No.4/4A, Sector-8, Kharghar, Maharashtra-410210 Pan No. :Abeps 1436 P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amitesh Gupta, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Id. Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Bengaluru, Dated 08.01.2025 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. Shri Amitesh Gupta, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 14 Days. In This Regard The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Accordingly, The Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Amitesh Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.DR

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 14 days. In this regard the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons which are plausible and not found to be false. Accordingly, the delay of 14 days in filing the present appeal

Lingole Venkateswara Rao, Narsapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

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

ITA 508/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.508/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Lingolu Venkateswara Vs. Income Tax Officer Rao, Narsapur (Ward-1) Pan: Adxpl7355H Bhimavaram (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 31/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/10/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Contrary To The Facts & Also The Law Applicable To The Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 226(3)

Lingolu Venkateswara Rao Narsapur 2. The learned CIT (A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the delay of 176 days in filing the appeal. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing”. 3. At the time ... proceeds which is already declared in the return of income. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR has vehemently opposed to the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee in Form 35 has admitted the service of the assessment order on 12th March, 2025 whereas the appeal

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Manoj Bahl, Jaipur

In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the department is hereby dismissed, being not maintainable

ITA 832/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 153Section 153C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2024) 161 taxmann.com 255 (Rajasthan), D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019. With the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay came to be filed. The ground for condonation of delay is that the copy of the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) was received

Mohammed Saheed, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward Dausa, Dausa

ITA 659/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT- DR a

consideration, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 449 days in filing appeal for which the assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay with the prayer to condone the delay as the assessee has not received the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and thus delay ... occurred in filing the appeal before ITAT. The relevant submission as made in the application for condonation of delay is as under:- ‘’Sub: Regarding acceptance of application for condonation of delay in case of Shri Mohammed Saheed having appeal No. ITA No. 659/JPR/25 (PAN:AYPPS4404D). Respected Members, With reference

Badri Narayan Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 341/JPR/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Or Before Hearing Of This Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 271ASection 271BSection 4Section 44A

days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: “Application for condonation of delay in filing Form 36 HON'BLE SIRS, I, Badri Narayan Choudhary, the above-named assessee-appellant would like ... delay in filing the form 36 is bona fide & unintentional and backed by reasonable cause. It is therefore, humbly prayed to kindly condone the delay of 956 days in filing Form 36 and allow admission of appeal and oblige.” 4. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR not objected

Prime Rose City School Samiti, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(1), Jaipur

ITA 280/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 270ASection 68

under:- ‘’In the light of above facts of the case at Point No. (i) to (xii), in absence of an application seeking proper condonation of delay in filing of this appeal, the non- submission of such cogent reasons for not submitting the details before the AO during the course ... itself by again referring to the delay in filing appeal and lack of condonation application: "...in absence of even an application seeking proper condonation of delay..." Once delay is condoned, it is impermissible to subsequently rely on the same as a reason to discredit the appeal on merits. This constitutes

Abdulwahid Abdulkarim Qureshi, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward 2, Ahmednagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 894/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 147Section 250

Registry has informed that appeal before this Tribunal is time barred by limitation by 50 days. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating as follows : “1. The assessee submits that in the present case, the appellate order u/s.250 passed by the CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi for A.Y.2016 ... assessee and find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeals within the stipulated time limit. We therefore condone the delay of 50 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeals for adjudication in light of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Abdulwahid Abdulkarim Qureshi, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward 2, Ahmednagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 893/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 147Section 250

Registry has informed that appeal before this Tribunal is time barred by limitation by 50 days. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating as follows : “1. The assessee submits that in the present case, the appellate order u/s.250 passed by the CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi for A.Y.2016 ... assessee and find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeals within the stipulated time limit. We therefore condone the delay of 50 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeals for adjudication in light of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Dayanand Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result ITA No. 2330/PUN/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 2542/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2330&2542/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: Na Dayanand Foundation, Cit Exemption, Pune G Wing, Flat No. 501, Sr No.136/1A, 5A, 5B Marvel, Vs. Hadapsar Pune-411028 Maharashtra Pan-Aactd9309F अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Smt. Deepa Khare (Through Virtual) Department By: Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12-08-2025 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- The Captioned Appeals At The Instance Of Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 & 16.11.2024 Passed By Ld.Cit(E), Pune Under Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Registry Has Informed That Ita 2330/Pun/2024 Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 166 Days. Affidavit Along With Application For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record. Perusal Of The Same Indicates That Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Placing Reliance On The Judgement Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Master Katiji & Others(1987) 167 Itr 471(Sc) (Supreme Court) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Dated 21.03.2025 (2025) Insc 382) & Also Taking A Liberal & Justice Oriented Approach The Delay In Filing The Appeal In Ita No. 2330/Pun/2024 Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G(5)

Registry has informed that ITA 2330/PUN/2024 has been filed with a delay of 166 days. Affidavit along with application for condonation of delay is placed on record. Perusal of the same indicates that assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Placing

Dayanand Foudation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result ITA No. 2330/PUN/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 2330/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2330&2542/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: Na Dayanand Foundation, Cit Exemption, Pune G Wing, Flat No. 501, Sr No.136/1A, 5A, 5B Marvel, Vs. Hadapsar Pune-411028 Maharashtra Pan-Aactd9309F अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Smt. Deepa Khare (Through Virtual) Department By: Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12-08-2025 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- The Captioned Appeals At The Instance Of Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 & 16.11.2024 Passed By Ld.Cit(E), Pune Under Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Registry Has Informed That Ita 2330/Pun/2024 Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 166 Days. Affidavit Along With Application For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record. Perusal Of The Same Indicates That Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Placing Reliance On The Judgement Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Master Katiji & Others(1987) 167 Itr 471(Sc) (Supreme Court) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Dated 21.03.2025 (2025) Insc 382) & Also Taking A Liberal & Justice Oriented Approach The Delay In Filing The Appeal In Ita No. 2330/Pun/2024 Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G(5)

Registry has informed that ITA 2330/PUN/2024 has been filed with a delay of 166 days. Affidavit along with application for condonation of delay is placed on record. Perusal of the same indicates that assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Placing

Sunlit Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 828/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 12ASection 282

noted that there is a delay of 377 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit, explaining the reasons for the said delay. The learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the notices and the impugned

Yug Nirman Yojana Gayatri Pariwar Trust, Berhampur vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

ITA 494/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Us:

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Exemptions), and submitted that the time limit prescribed under the law is mandatory in nature, and the CIT(Exemptions) has no discretion to condone the delay in filing of “Form 10AB”. 9. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee trust ... rights, particularly in matters of charitable trusts seeking exemptions. Although there is no explicit provision under the Income- tax Act or rules for condonation of delay in filing of “Form 10AB” for regular registration under Section 80G of the Act, but the assessee trust remains at liberty to approach