← 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

Kiran Nimba Bramhankar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Assessment Unit (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 1290/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1290/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kiran Nimba Bramhankar, Income Tax Jaikheda 422, Nashik- Assessment Unit 423303 Vs. (Nfac), Delhi Maharashtra Pan-Axepb5967G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Ca Sarvesh V Toshniwal Department By: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing: 04-08-2025 Date Of 14-08-2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: CA Sarvesh V ToshniwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

stated to be medical 2 emergency with the appellant’s Counsel CA Sarvesh Toshniwal. We find it to be reasonable cause and accordingly condone the delay of 2 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- Ground 1-Ld CIT(A) has erred ... condoning the delay of 146 days for filing the appeal without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and not attributing the assessee's condition to be 'Sufficient cause' for delay condonation. Ground 2- The Ld CIT(A) has erred in not providing the appellant an opportunity of being

Twopiradian Infotech Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 2(1)-Kol, Kolkata

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 247/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WARI the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

Section 245Section 246ASection 250Section 253

this affidavit is executed for filing the same before the Hon'ble Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the matter of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 12. THAT the contents of this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief ... this case, this present appeal is filed for making the correct assessment as per the mandate of law together with an APPLICATION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY AND STAY OF DEMAND. 9. That the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 10. That the Appellant craves leaves

Twopiradian Infotech Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 2(1)-Kol, Kolkata

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 246/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WAR the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

Section 245Section 246ASection 250Section 253

this affidavit is executed for filing the same before the Hon'ble Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the matter of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 12. THAT the contents of this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief ... this case, this present appeal is filed for making the correct assessment as per the mandate of law together with an APPLICATION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY AND STAY OF DEMAND. 9. That the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 10. That the Appellant craves leaves

Twopiradian Infotech Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 245/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 13/02/2024, though belatedly, vide e-Filing Acknowledgement Number: 110773970130224 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 belatedly on the grounds explained WARI the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal.

Section 245Section 246ASection 250Section 253

this affidavit is executed for filing the same before the Hon'ble Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the matter of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 12. THAT the contents of this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief ... this case, this present appeal is filed for making the correct assessment as per the mandate of law together with an APPLICATION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY AND STAY OF DEMAND. 9. That the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 10. That the Appellant craves leaves

Maisali Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Contai, East Medinipore vs. I.T.O., Ward - 27(2), Haldia

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

ITA 1666/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1666/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year. :2018-2019) Maisali Samabay Krishi Unnayan Vs Adit, Cpc, Bangalore Samity Limited, C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata-700069 Pan No. : Aadam 3104 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agrawal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. Shri Siddharth Agrawal, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 1155 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein That Sri Bhaskar Chandra Patra, Who Used To Look After The Income Tax Matter Of The Assessee Was Suffering From Jaundice & Remained Absent From Office Of The Assessee For A Long Time & When He Joined To Office, There Was Already Delay In Filing The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Before The Tribunal. The Contents Of The Affidavit Are As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Sr. DR

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 1155 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein that Sri Bhaskar Chandra Patra, who used to look after the income tax matter of the assessee was suffering ... submission of the ld.AR that the delay may kindly be condoned. 5. A perusal of the application of the assessee for condonation of delay supported with affidavit, it is found that the reasons given in the affidavit for delay are plausible and not found to be false. Accordingly, the delay

Dhanasekaran Ramasamy, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 580/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mr. A Tamilamudan, CAFor Respondent: Mr. S.B. Rajendra Kumar
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69

returned income. 7) There is a delay of 457 days in filing this appeal. A petition for condonation of delay. supported by a notarized affidavit, will be filed at the time of hearing.” 2. The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income ... Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay of 393 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. We heard the parties and perused the material on record

Hindustan Spimg Engineering Private Limited, Trichy vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Trichy

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1344/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ankita S. Shah, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36Section 43B

collected towards ESI/PF but not deposited within the prescribed due dates. Thereafter, the Appellant filed another Original Return u/s 119(2)(b) After condonation of delay / Court Order or Sanction Order of Business reorganisation of the Competent authority issued prior to 01.04.2022 filed on 11.11.2019 on 09.11.2019. In this later ... There is a delay of 373 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed the petition condoning the delay stating that the Chartered Accountant (CA) who was handling the tax matters of the assessee underwent prolonged hospitalization and surgery and ultimately passed away. The assessee along with

Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 370/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H. Kalakeri, Ld.CIT
Section 143Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36Section 43B

stipulated time which fact may kindly be appreciated by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 24. It is humbly submitted that if this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is not allowed, the Petitioner / Appellant would be put to great ITA Nos.369 & 370/Bang/2025 M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Page ... hardship and irreparable injury and on the other hand no hardship or injury would be caused to the Respondent if this application of condonation of delay is allowed. 25. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition

Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 369/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H. Kalakeri, Ld.CIT
Section 143Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36Section 43B

stipulated time which fact may kindly be appreciated by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 24. It is humbly submitted that if this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is not allowed, the Petitioner / Appellant would be put to great ITA Nos.369 & 370/Bang/2025 M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Page ... hardship and irreparable injury and on the other hand no hardship or injury would be caused to the Respondent if this application of condonation of delay is allowed. 25. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition

Jaikusuma Balakrishna Shetty, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1096/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ld.CAFor Respondent: Sri Balasamy N – Ld.JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234Section 250

A/NFAC is not justified in holding that the appellant was not interested in prosecuting the appeal on the ground that no petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the learned CITIAl was filed under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case ... contrary, Ld. DR refuted the claim of the assessee. Having considered the reasons stated by the assessee for the 5. condonation of delay along with the medical certificates, as bonafide, genuine, unintentional and plausible reason for the delay, we are inclined to condone the delay, thus the same is condoned

Amit Gulab Pardasani, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-23(1), Mumbai

ITA 841/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain(Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Am) Amit Gulab Pardasani Dcit, Circle 23(1) B-302, Diago, Near Rizvi Piramal Chamber College, Sherly Rajan Vs. Lalbaug, Parel Road, Bandra West Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai-400 050. Pan : Agdpp5773G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RaiFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash Singh
Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

there is delay in filing the current appeal. In this regard Ld. AR has filed a detailed affidavit alongwith an application for seeking condonation of delay. 3. After having heard both parties on this application, we noticed that the delay in filing the present appeal has accrued on account ... employment obligations. Since the delay is of 6 days and the case of the assessee has merits, therefore considering this fact, we condon the delay and allow the application. Since, we have condoned the delay therefore appeal stands admitted to be heard on merits. 2 Amit Gulab Pardasani 4. Ground

Aditya Ramsingh Agarwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 17(1), Bandra

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 477/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailaditya Ramsingh Agarwal, 226, Bussa Industrial Premises, Century Bazaar Line, Mumbai - 400025 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaapa8348P V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……………… Respondent Circle – 17(1) Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400051 Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

learned Departmental Representative. 3. The present appeal is delayed by 54 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. According to the assessee, he had appointed a dedicated staff to handle the litigation/compliance matters related to Income Tax, and he was completely dependent ... considered view that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal within the limitation period. Accordingly, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the present appeal on the merits. 4. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – “The Assessee prefers

Ghumli Shipping Agents Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 3670/MUM/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainghumli Shipping Agents Pvt Vs. Ito, Ward 3(1)(3) Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Flat No. 32, 7Th Floor, Bldg Mumbai. No. 3, Tata Mills Hsg, Society, Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Pan/Gir No. Aahcg4357J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234Section 250

filed by the appellant merely on the ground of limitation by not exercising 2 Ghulmi Shipping Agents Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. his powers to condone the delay when there were sufficient reasons available for delay in filing the appeal against the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Income ... returned undelivered. 8. The CIT (A) failed to consider the appellant's case on merit and dismissed the appeal by not considering request condonation of delay of just 59 days by stating that no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay. 9. The appellant objects to the granting

Edweena Real Estate Private Limited, Mumbai City vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 12(2)(1), Mumbai City

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

ITA 2633/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 22Section 250Section 253Section 68Section 7

noticed that the present appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 351 days and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under: “We, Incorp Restructuring Services LLP, through our Authorized Representative, Mr. Vithal ... time. Edweena Real Estate Pvt Ltd., Mumbai 6. After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation of delay and considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court

Edweena Real Estate Private Limited, Mumbai City vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 12(2)(1), Mumbai City

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

ITA 2632/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 22Section 250Section 253Section 68Section 7

noticed that the present appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 351 days and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under: “We, Incorp Restructuring Services LLP, through our Authorized Representative, Mr. Vithal ... time. Edweena Real Estate Pvt Ltd., Mumbai 6. After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation of delay and considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court

Parmar Buildtech, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

ITA 2608/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarparmar Buildtech Vs. National Faceless Parmar Estate Parekh Appeal Centre, Delhi Nagar, Opp. Swami Vivekanand Int Scho Kandivali West, Mumbai - 400067 Pan/Gir No. Aajfp2574P (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250

other hand, the Ld. DR the contested the said application and submitted that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. After having heard the counsel for both the parties on 4. this application for seeking condonation of delay and considering the entire factual position as explained before ... justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 4 Parmar Buildtech

Prathamesh Graphics & Digital, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 21(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1461/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 68

days in filing the present appeal and in this regard Ld.AR drawing our attention to the contents of the application for seeking condonation of delay, submitted that the notice was issued by the department on e-portal which assessee was not aware of impugned orders due to lack of knowledge ... light of the above, ld. AR requests to condone the delay. 4. Whereas, on the contrary, ld. DR contested the said application, requesting to dismiss the same as there was no ‘sufficient cause’ in filing the appeal late. 5. After having heard counsels for both the parties on the application

Pallavi Santosh Bhave, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6418/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 271(1)(c)

noticed that there is a delay of 13 days in filing the present appeal regarding which assessee has moved an application for seeking condonation of Delay coupled with an affidavit. 3. Whereas on the contrary, Ld. DR contested the said application and requested to dismiss the same as there ... sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 4. After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application and considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Feroj Khimjibhai Complex, Belagavi vs. S G Copper Products Pvt Ltd, Vaze Galli, M Vadgaon, Bgm

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 166/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.166/Pan/2023 & C.O.No.4/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) I T O Ward -1 Vs S G Copper Products Civil Hospital Road, Pvt Limited, . Belgaum-590001. 125/A, Vazegalli, Karnataka. Vadgaon, Belgaum-590005, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aancs3201P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal .Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri. Mahantesh K Hospeth.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 31.07.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 01.08.2025 Order Per Bench: The Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Nfac Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. & The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection. 2.At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Cross Objections Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned Are Reasonable & The Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Cross Objections. The Revenue Has Raised

that there is a delay in filing the Cross Objections before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the Cross objections

Krishna Developers, Junagadh vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Junagadh Range, Junagadh

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

ITA 425/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.425/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Krishna Developers Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Income 1St Floor, Business Centre, Bud Stand, Tax Junagadh Range, L.B.S. Society, Income Tax Office, Junagadh – 362210 Junagadh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefk0952H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shrimehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: ShriMehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 44A

outset, that the appeal filed late by 437 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; “Our firm is discontinued w.e.f. 26/08/2023 With the discontinue of firm, our contact details ... appeal, 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 437 days. 6. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has discontinued w.e.f