← 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

Deputy Chief Engineer Con. East Coast Railway, Jajpur vs. ITO, Ward TDS, Cuttack

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

ITA 782/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 335 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with ITA No. 780 to 796/Ctk/2025 Dy. Chief Engineer Con. Vs ITO an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal ... before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. DRs did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 335 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. At the time of hearing before

Deputy Chief Engineer Con. East Coast Railway, Jajpur vs. ITO, Ward TDS, Cuttack

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

ITA 781/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 335 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with ITA No. 780 to 796/Ctk/2025 Dy. Chief Engineer Con. Vs ITO an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal ... before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. DRs did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 335 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. At the time of hearing before

Deputy Chief Engineer Con. East Coast Railway, Jajpur vs. ITO, Ward TDS, Cuttack

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

ITA 780/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 335 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with ITA No. 780 to 796/Ctk/2025 Dy. Chief Engineer Con. Vs ITO an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal ... before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. DRs did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 335 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. At the time of hearing before

Panchayat Samiti Danagadi, Jajpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Japjpur Ward, Jajpur

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

ITA 762/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra & Himanshu Jena, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

above two appeals, ITA No.747/CTK/2025 is delayed by 322 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false ... object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 322 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing along with ITA No.762/CTK/2025. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals

Seikh Sultan Noor, Bhadrak vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak

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

ITA 752/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.752/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Seikh Sultan Noor Vs Ito, Bhadrak Ward, At/P.O/P.S:- Kacheri Bazar, Bhadrak Dist:-Bhadrak, 756100 Pan No. : Acipn 8070 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & Shri Narahari Swain, Advs राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date : 18/02/2026 Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Appeal No.Cit(A), Cuttack/10462/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra & Shri Narahari Swain, Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra and Shri Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr DR

revenue. 3. T The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 477 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false ... object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 477 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) have dismissed the appeal

Panchayat Samiti Danagadi, Jajpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward TDS, Cuttack

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

ITA 747/CTK/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra & Himanshu Jena, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

above two appeals, ITA No.747/CTK/2025 is delayed by 322 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false ... object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 322 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing along with ITA No.762/CTK/2025. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals

Sarada Buildcon Private Limited, Jajpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 728/CTK/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.728/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007) Vs Acit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack Sarada Buildcon Private Limited, At -Plot No.1425, Bank Street, Jajpur Road, Jajpur-755019 Pan No. :Aahcs 7412 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & Narahari Swain, Ars राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 21.09.2025 For The Assessment Year 2006-2007. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 13 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Which Are Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 13 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal & Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Assessment Order Is An Ex- Parte Order. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee On Account Of Delay Of 3887 Days. It Was Submission That The Assesses’S

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra & Narahari Swain, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144

appeal of the assessee is delayed by 13 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false ... object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 13 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessment order is an ex- parte order

Tarashankar Das Reprsented Through His Legal Heir Kartik Chandra Das, Mayurbhanj vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Baripada

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

ITA 556/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.556/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Vs Ito Ward-1, Baripada Tarashankar Das Represented Through His Legal Heir Kartik Chandra Das, At-Ward No.10, Baripada, Lalbazar, Baripada, Dist-Mayurbhanj-757001 Pan No. :Acopd 0121 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & Himanshu Jena, Ars राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 08.07.2025 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 15 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Which Are Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 15 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal & Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra & Himanshu Jena, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

appeal of the assessee is delayed by 15 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false ... object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 15 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 2 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Sreeramulu Pentakota, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam

ITA 555/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)

filing Page. No 3 I.T.A.No.555/VIZ/2025 Sreeramulu Pentakota of the appeal had drawn our attention to the application filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay dated 22.09.2025, supported with copies of medical certificates. Also, the Ld.AR had taken us through the “affidavit” filed by the assessee dated 20.9.2025, wherein ... Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering

Late Rama Kumari Munna Represented by Shri Shivayya Munna Husband Legal Heir, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

ITA 541/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 250

Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering ... application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in the appeal. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observation, condone the delay of 192 days involved in filing the present appeal by the assessee (through legal heir) before us. 9. Coming to the core issue involved

Audrey Bernice Roy, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam

ITA 494/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194JSection 44A

column no. 14 of Form No. 35, the appellant has admitted to the delay in filing and has given the reason for condonation of delay which is as under:-. "There is a delay 1501 days due to non availability or non communication of intimation u/s 143(1). The same ... file the appeal. 2.4 There is a statutory limit prescribed for filing of appeal in the Act. The invocation of the power to condone any delay, major or minor, in observing such time limit is possible only on the satisfaction of the Addl./JCIT (Appeal) regarding the appellant having been

Karamjit Singh Toor, Ludhiana vs. Jao the Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Khanna

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1527/CHANDI/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1527/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Karamjit Singh Toor Ito Village Barmalipur, Near Bija बनाम/ Vs. Ward-3 Ludhiana – 141416 Khanna - 141401 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Fmpps-8259-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018- 19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Dated 16-01-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao On Best Judgment Basis U/S 144 On 19-04-2021. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Made Addition Of Rs.40.16 Lacs Which Represent Agricultural Income As Shown By The Assessee. The Assessee Failed To Make Any Representation During Assessment

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Sr. DR
Section 144

agricultural income as shown by the assessee. The assessee failed to make any representation during assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 71 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The only prayer of Ld. AR is condonation of delay and another

Jaswinder Singh, Barnala vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Barnala

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1524/CHANDI/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1524/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Jaswinder Singh Ito S/O Shri Jaggar Singh Ward-1 बनाम/ Vs. Patti Basso, Vill. Pakho Kalan Barnala - 148108 Barnala (Punjab) – 148108 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ebzps-8593-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Dated 23-09-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao On Best Judgment Basis U/S 144 On 27-12-2019. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Made Twin Additions Of Rs.37 Lacs For Want Of Any Representation From The Assessee. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Condone The Delay Of 790 Days & Also Endorsed The Action Of Ld.

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Sr. DR
Section 144

order, Ld. AO made twin additions of Rs.37 Lacs for want of any representation from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 790 days and also endorsed the action of Ld. AO on merits for want of any substantial evidences from the assessee. Aggrieved ... assessee is in further appeal before us. The only prayer of Ld. AR is condonation of delay and another opportunity of hearing which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case. 2. We find that

Mevad Vagad Rajput Seva Sanstha, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-trust are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 21/AHD/2026[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Padiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80

given the liberty to the assessee to file the application mentioning the correct provisions/clause and also to move an application for condonation of delay. 4. We note that there remained a lot of confusion about the interpretation of the relevant provisions regarding the registration u/s 12A and approval ITA Nos.20

Mevad Vagad Rajput Seva Sanstha, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-trust are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 20/AHD/2026[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Padiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80

given the liberty to the assessee to file the application mentioning the correct provisions/clause and also to move an application for condonation of delay. 4. We note that there remained a lot of confusion about the interpretation of the relevant provisions regarding the registration u/s 12A and approval ITA Nos.20

Adorn Wirelinks Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. I.T.O. Ward 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 602/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 250

First Appellate Authority which was decided by the Addl. CIT(A) vide the impugned order The Ld. Addl. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing of appeal before him and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. Addl ... Addl. CIT(A) did not consider the grounds taken by the assessee on merits and had dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing of appeal. He explained that the delay was due to lapse on the part of the counsel of the assessee

Adorn Wirelinks Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. I.T.O. Ward 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 601/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 250

First Appellate Authority which was decided by the Addl. CIT(A) vide the impugned order The Ld. Addl. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing of appeal before him and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. Addl ... Addl. CIT(A) did not consider the grounds taken by the assessee on merits and had dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing of appeal. He explained that the delay was due to lapse on the part of the counsel of the assessee

Anju Bharat Chelani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2598/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 271ASection 69ASection 69B

order passed 250 passed on 05.12.2025 for A.Y.2019-20 by NFAC, Delhi (for short "C1T(A)") dismissing the appeal by refusing to condone the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal, though the explanation was available in the SOF to the appeal memo and thereby confirming addition of Rs.1 ... against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal late by 17 days, though the explanation was available in the SOF to the appeal memo

Bhikhabhai Somabhai Patel, Sabarkantha vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Himatnagar

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

ITA 2597/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir VoraFor Respondent: Shri Rajkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 270ASection 57

outset itself, Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed both the appeals of the assessee as non-maintainable, not condoning the delay in filing the same. He pointed out that the quantum appeal of the assessee was delayed for filing by 901 days, while the penalty ... never received the notices or for that matter the assessment order, appears to be plausible. 11. What weighs heavily in favour of condonation of delay is the fact that if the delay is not condoned the huge addition of Rs.80lacs made in the case of the assessee, who admittedly

Bhikhabhai Somabhai Patel, Sabarkantha vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Himatnagar

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

ITA 2596/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir VoraFor Respondent: Shri Rajkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 270ASection 57

outset itself, Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed both the appeals of the assessee as non-maintainable, not condoning the delay in filing the same. He pointed out that the quantum appeal of the assessee was delayed for filing by 901 days, while the penalty ... never received the notices or for that matter the assessment order, appears to be plausible. 11. What weighs heavily in favour of condonation of delay is the fact that if the delay is not condoned the huge addition of Rs.80lacs made in the case of the assessee, who admittedly