← 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

Ram Swaroop Agarwal, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 306/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 250Section 250(6)

appeal on 31.05.2025 against the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 by a delay of about 11 days. The reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay are that the appellant/assessee handed over all the necessary documents to the staff of his representative/CA, but the same were inadvertently placed in wrong ... with a delay of 11 days. Ld. AR has also filed an affidavit in support of assessee’s delay condonation application. Prayed to condone the delay. 3. Considering the aforesaid reasons, given in the delay condonation application supported by uncontroverted affidavit and in the interest of justice, we deem

Jitendra Pal Singh, Jhansi vs. ITO Ward 2(3)1 Jhansi, Jhansi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 257/AGR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 250Section 250(6)

against the impugned order passed on 28.02.2025 by a delay of about 13 days. The reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay are that the counsel of appellant could not prepare the appeal within the stipulated period of limitation due to his wife’s serious ailment, which ... file this appeal with a short delay. The assessee has also filed an affidavit in support of delay condonation application. Prayed to condone the delay. 3. Considering the aforesaid reasons, given in the delay condonation application supported by uncontroverted affidavit and in the interest of justice, we deem it just

Sneha Pandey, Etawah vs. Income Tax Officer 2(2)(5) Etawah, Etawah

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 138/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

that the assessee filed this second appeal on 12.03.2025 against the impugned order passed on 15.05.2024. The reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay are that the e-main Id mentioned in Form No. 35 was of assessee's earlier counsel, who did not inform the assessee about ... assessee to file this appeal with delay. The assessee has also filed an affidavit in support of delay condonation application. Prayed to condone the delay. 3. Considering the aforesaid reasons, given in the delay condonation application supported by uncontroverted affidavit and in the interest of justice, we deem it just

M/S Divyansh Infra Estate Pvt Ltd, Raipur vs. ITO Ward 4(1) Raipur, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.424/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Divyansh Infra Estate Private Limited House No.44/487, Arihant Niwas, Satti Bazar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadcd7801J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 5

/2024, dated 31.01.2025, had observed that a justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income ... Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. That in the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 4. case of Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil

J K Securites & Consultancy, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 119/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.119/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) J.K. Securities & Consultancy बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward- 301, Sagar Arcade, Gondal 1(2)(1), Rajkot, New Aaykar /Vs. Road, Rajkot-360 002 Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfj 6816 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Samar Bhuptani, Ld.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250

other hand, the Learned Senior DR for the Revenue submitted that mistake committed by the Tax consultant is not a sufficient cause to condone the delay. Hence, appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 5. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. It is submitted that ... DCIT [ITA Nos.2519 to 2521/Kol/2017, order dated 18.04.2018], wherein under similar set of facts and reasons, the Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to condone the delay of 211 days by holding as under: "3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given

Muncipal Corporation, Rajahmundry vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Range, Visakhapatnam

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable, being barred by limitation

ITA 2/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1/Viz/2025 & 2/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Municipal Corporation Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Rajahmundry Income Tax Pan : Vpnmo0927D Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 271C

respectively. 2. There is a delay of 643 days in filing these two appeals. The assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay nor has explained the cause of delay, either in the pleadings or otherwise. The Ld.AR of the assessee has also shown his handicapness to explain ... years in filing these appeals after the impugned orders were passed by the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee has neither filed any application for condonation of delay nor otherwise explained the cause of delay. In Form-36, the assessee has accepted the date of communication as 23.01.2023 and therefore, the delay

Muncipal Corporation, Rajahmundry vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Range, Visakhapatnam

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable, being barred by limitation

ITA 1/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1/Viz/2025 & 2/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Municipal Corporation Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Rajahmundry Income Tax Pan : Vpnmo0927D Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 271C

respectively. 2. There is a delay of 643 days in filing these two appeals. The assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay nor has explained the cause of delay, either in the pleadings or otherwise. The Ld.AR of the assessee has also shown his handicapness to explain ... years in filing these appeals after the impugned orders were passed by the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee has neither filed any application for condonation of delay nor otherwise explained the cause of delay. In Form-36, the assessee has accepted the date of communication as 23.01.2023 and therefore, the delay

Connect Signal, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

ITA 751/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

Section 12A of the Act. 3. Since the appeal came to be presented 68 days after the prescribed period of limitation, application seeking condonation of delay has been filed. 4. ITA No. 752/JPR/2025.- Appellant-applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 05.12.2024, passed by Learned CIT(E), Jaipur, whereby ... cancelled. Connect Signal, Jaipur. 5. Since this appeal also came to be presented 68 days after the prescribed period of limitation, application seeking condonation of delay has been filed with this appeal as well. Contentions- On Condonation of Delay 6. On the point of condonation of delay

Mahemudkhan Ajamuddin Rana, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1198/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 69A

notices, respectively. 4. In appeal, he Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal primarily on the ground of non-prosecution and refusal to condone the delay in filing the appeal. CIT(Appeals) noted that despite multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to appear, file submissions, or seek adjournment. All notices were ... interest of substantial justice, and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judicial pronouncements on condonation of delay, we are inclined to condone the delay of 207 days in filing the appeal. The delay is hereby condoned. 7. On going through

Gram Seva Samaj Vankal, Surat vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1192/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2025

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT DR
Section 12A(1)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

10AB was rejected, and the assessee’s provisional approval under Section 80G was also cancelled. 4. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 115 days in filing the appeal against the order rejecting approval under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act. The delay has been

Yuvaa Urjaa Foundation, Nashik vs. CIT(E), Pune

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 700/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.698&700/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Vs Cit Exemption, Pune Yuvaa Urjaa Foundation, Shop No. 4, Anusaya Apartment, Shivaji Nagar, Satpur, Nashik-422012 Maharashtra Pan-Aaaty7279H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde-CIT
Section 12Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 135 days in filing of the present appeals. Application for condonation of delay has been filed. We have heard both the sides. The main reason for delay is that the impugned orders were sent on the e-mail ... Apex Court & in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382), we hereby condone the delay in filing of the instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. The issue for consideration is regarding rejection of application for registration

Yuvaa Urjaa Foundation, Nashik vs. CIT(E), Pune

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 698/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.698&700/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Vs Cit Exemption, Pune Yuvaa Urjaa Foundation, Shop No. 4, Anusaya Apartment, Shivaji Nagar, Satpur, Nashik-422012 Maharashtra Pan-Aaaty7279H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde-CIT
Section 12Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 135 days in filing of the present appeals. Application for condonation of delay has been filed. We have heard both the sides. The main reason for delay is that the impugned orders were sent on the e-mail ... Apex Court & in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382), we hereby condone the delay in filing of the instant appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. The issue for consideration is regarding rejection of application for registration

Late Bhauso Gunda Patil Legal Heir Shri Shashikant Patil, Tasgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4, Sangli

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

ITA 647/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.647/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Late Bhauso Gunda Patil Legal V The Income Tax Officer, Heir Shri Shashikant Patil, S Ward-4, Sangli. At Post Khatav Brahmanal, Tal-Tasgaon, Maharashtra- 416423. Pan: Apipp7148F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Shri Shashikant Patil As Legal Heir Of Late Bhauso Gunda Patil Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 Dated 26.10.2023, Emanating From Order U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 28.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Delay : The Legal Hier of the Assessee filed an Affidavit for condonation of Delay. We have perused the Affidavit. Substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. Therefore, we are convinced that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for delay

The Solapur Pyramid Spiritual Trust, Solapur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1533/PUN/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2026-27

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1533/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2026-2027 Vs Cit Exemption, Pune The Solapur Pyramid Spiritual Trust, Plot No. 77/78, Vaishnavi Residency Road, Flat No. 7 Hotgi Road Anthrolikar Nagar, Solapur-413003 Maharashtra Pan-Aadtt9388F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jasraj SutarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde-CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Registry has informed that the appeal is delayed by 384 days. Application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit is placed on record. We have heard both the sides. We notice that the main reason of delay is that the consultant ... Apex Court & in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382), we hereby condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Sole issue raised by the assessee is against the rejection of application for approval

Pankaj Chandrakant Ladkat, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-14(3), Pune

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

ITA 1523/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1523/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Vs Ito, Ward-14(3), Pankaj Chandrakant Ladkat, Pune S No 211, Rupi Nagar, Bhekrainagar, Phursungi, S.O Fursungi, Pune- 412308 Maharashtra Pan-Agwpl9120G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing appeal by not condoning the delay without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition ... appeal against the additions made by Ld. Assessing Officer AO u/s 69A of the Act has been dismissed in limine. Prayer made for condoning the delay and affording one more opportunity to go before Ld. CIT(A). 4. Ld. Departmental Representative supported the order

Dadasaheb Tirodkar Shaikshanik Academy, Sindhudurg vs. Itod Exemption Ward, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1016/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1016/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 | Dadasaheb Tirodkar V | The Income Tax Officer, Shaikshanik Academy, S Exemption Ward, Pandurtitha Pandur, Kudal, Kolhapur. Maharashtra. Sindhudurg - 416520. Pan: Aactd5657Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Shri Nikhil Pathak & Shri Mayuresh Doshi – Ar'S Shri Eknath Abhang –Addl.Cit(Dr) 23/07/2025 30/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Udaipur Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 27.02.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.154 R.W.S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 09.07.2024. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 10Section 10(21)Section 10(228)Section 10(24)Section 10(46)Section 10(47)Section 11Section 11(3)Section 13ASection 13B

mandatory on the part of the appellant to file the Form No.10B in due time or get a condonation of delay in filing the Form 10B from the CIT(Exemptions). The AO cannot allow the deductions u/s.11 / 10(23C) on facts and in circumstances of the law except when ... Court directs under alternative remedy or the CIT(Exemptions) condones the delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. Keeping in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the AO has rightly denied exemption u/s 11 / 10(23C) of the I.T. Act and rightly determined total income

Sisters of Our Lady of Fatima Pargi, Vikarabad vs. CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 712/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 12A

noted that there is a delay of 364 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

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

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

ITA 648/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

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

noted that there is a delay of 255 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

Primary Agricultural Co Operative Society Limited Chennaraopet, Warangal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Warangal

ITA 3/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250Section 5Section 80P

learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred condoning the delay and in dismissing the appeal in limine in not 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have decided the appeal ... assessee society wherein, pointing out the aforesaid default, it was called upon to upload the petition for condonation of delay involved in the appeal filed before him on or before 17.09.2024. For the sake of clarity, the relevant portion of the notice issued by the CIT(A) is culled

Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1) & Tps, Mangaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 942/BANG/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 17

Tribunal's view that there was no question of limitation in such cases, was not correct yet the AAC was right in condoning the delay and entertaining the appeal.” 6.2 From the above, we note that the Hon’ble Madras High Court condoned a delay of nearly 20 years ... appeal late. (ii) Refusing to condone delay may reject a meritorious matter . Page 4 of 9 at the threshold, defeating justice. In contrast, condoning the delay allows the matter to be decided on merits. (ii) The requirement to explain "every day's delay" should not be interpreted strictly. A rational