← 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

Narayana Rao Sujatha, Chamarajanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chamarajanagar

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

ITA 803/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234Section 250Section 69A

days against the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee has moved an application for condonation of delay supported by a sworn affidavit and supporting medical records, including prescriptions and bills, which are placed on record. 4. We have perused the contents ... facts and circumstances of the case, the medical documents available on record, and the principle of natural justice, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay of 633 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits

Shri Guru Gajadandeshwara Charitable Trust, Devarabhupur, Lingasagur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Exemption Ward-1, Kalburgi

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

ITA 502/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na Shri Guru Gajadandeshwara Charitable Trust 1 Devarabhupur Post Devabhupur Cit (Exemption) Lingasugur Vs. Ward-1 Raichur 584 139 Kalburgi Karnataka Pan No : Aazts9450P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Ramanagowda S Gowdari, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Sridhar E., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption) Dated 26.9.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Exm/F/Exm45/2024-25/1069118346(1) Cancelling The Approval U/S 80G Of The Act Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sri Ramanagowda S Gowdari, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sridhar E., D.R
Section 253(5)Section 80G

appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention to an affidavit in original dated 1.5.2025 for condonation of delay sworn before the notary public which are reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience: Shri Guru Gajadandeshwara Charitable Trust, Raichur Page ... that the delay is unintentional and no benefit can be attributed to the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly. He thus prayed to condone the delay and requested to consider the issues raised by the assessee on merits. 5. On the contrary the ld. D.R. vehemently objected for granting

Siddiq Hussain Delvi, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2374/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Siddiq Hussain Delvi No.127 L. No.1St Floor 6Th Street, Oph Road Shivaji Nagar Vs. Ito Ward 1(2)(2) Bengaluru 560 051 Bengaluru Pan No : Aveps62323P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Phani Kumar, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Ashwin D Gowda, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Sri Phani Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ashwin D Gowda, D.R
Section 226(3)Section 250Section 253(5)

that the delay is unintentional and no benefit can be attributed to the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly. He thus prayed to condone the delay and requested to consider the issues raised by the assessee on merits. 5. On the contrary the ld. D.R. vehemently objected for granting ... condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee is very callous in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have perused the details filed by the assessee to justify the delay and we are satisfied that there is no malafide intention on the part of the assessee in filing

Chetan Travels, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2337/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra BR, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(1)

ITAT. However, in this process, a delay of 3 days occurred. In view of the above, the learned AR prayed before us to condone the delay and decide the issue on merits. 5. On the merits of the case, it was submitted by the learned AR that the learned ... other hand, the learned DR, considering the short length of the delay, did not raise any objection to the condonation of delay filed by the assessee. The learned DR also did not raise any objection if the matter is set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication

Prasad Narayan Dhulap, Kamothe Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(2)(1), Vashi Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 4120/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4120/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year :2011-12) Prasad Narayan Dhulap V/S. Income Tax Officer Ward Flat No. A/801, Satyam बिधम 27(2)(1), Mumbai Arcade Plot No. 26 Sector It Office, Vashi Railway 21 Kamothe, Panvel Station Building, Navi 410209 Mumbai 400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Axtpd5548C Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Ms. Anuradha K. Jethi रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Bhagirath Ramawat (Sr Dr) सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 28.07.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Anuradha K. JethiFor Respondent: Shri. Bhagirath Ramawat (SR
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Prasad Narayan Dhulap 4. At the outset it is noticed that the appeal is delayed by 655 days. An affidavit or condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee explaining the circumstances resulting in the inordinate delay. Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee was around 19 years ... there is no plausible explanation supported by the documentary evidence to justify the inordinate delay in filing of appeal and therefore, request for condonation of delay ought to be rejected. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Considering the totality of the facts

Vichita Traders, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3786/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ramchandran, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D/R

filed before him was barred by limitation. 3. The appeal is barred by limitation by 89 days. The assessee has requested for the condonation of delay by filing the application supported by an affidavit. I.T.A. No. 3786/Mum/2025 2 4. We have carefully considered the contents of the affidavit

Cci Chambers Co-Op Hsg Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 3543/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Prakash Jotwani

case and in law: Ground No. 1: Appeal di Ground No. 1: Appeal dismissed on account of smissed on account of condonation of delay condonation of delay 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal 1. The learned ... without making an application for condonation of days and without making an application for condonation of days and without making an application for condonation of delay, although the appeal was filed on 21st April, 2016 delay, although the appeal was filed on 21st April, 2016 delay, although the appeal

Cci Chambers Co-Op Hsg Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 3542/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Prakash Jotwani

case and in law: Ground No. 1: Appeal di Ground No. 1: Appeal dismissed on account of smissed on account of condonation of delay condonation of delay 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal 1. The learned ... without making an application for condonation of days and without making an application for condonation of days and without making an application for condonation of delay, although the appeal was filed on 21st April, 2016 delay, although the appeal was filed on 21st April, 2016 delay, although the appeal

Kailash Nath Vishwanath Sharma, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 27(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3388/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Bharat L. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi,Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 41(1)

that there is a delay of 500 days in filing of the instant appeal, on which the Assessee by filing an application for condonation of delay along with duly sworn affidavit and relevant medical documents, has claimed as under: “1. I being an individual, I looked after my Income ... before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of A.Y. 2012-13 giving the reasons for delay in filing of an appeal and Condonation of delay. 3. I had received the order of CIT (A) of A.Y.2012-13 On. 11/10/2023. 4. I say that the delay was Mainly

Smt Shrishti Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 34(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 3163/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Shrishti Gupta, Ito34(3)(5) 301, Swati Building, North Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Avenue Santa Cruz (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Alapd 2228 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
Section 144Section 147Section 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. PRAYERS. 1) Delay in filing of appeal be condoned. 1) Delay in filing of appeal be condoned. 2) Addition of Rs 5.06.747 made u/s 69 of the Act be deleted. 2) Addition of Rs 5.06.747 made ... belatedly by 8 days, and further, that no that it had been filed belatedly by 8 days, and further, that no application for condonation of delay had been filed by the assessee. application for condonation of delay had been filed by the a application for condonation of delay had been

Shri Siddhachakra Vardhman Tap Jain Ayambilkhata, Mumbai vs. Income Tax CPC, Centralized, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for stati...

ITA 3153/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Sanghvi

However, before the assessee could file an explanation 5. However, before the assessee could file an explanation in support of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal in support of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal in support of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal ... matter respond before deciding the issue, particularly when the matter respond before deciding the issue, particularly when the matter involved condonation of involved condonation of delay—a matter where judicial discretion a matter where judicial discretion not only be exercised cautiously, but fairly. exercised cautiously, but fairly. In view

Shri Siddhachakra Vardhman Tap Jain Ayambilkhata, Mumbai vs. ITO Centrlized Processing Centre, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for stati...

ITA 3152/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Sanghvi

However, before the assessee could file an explanation 5. However, before the assessee could file an explanation in support of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal in support of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal in support of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal ... matter respond before deciding the issue, particularly when the matter respond before deciding the issue, particularly when the matter involved condonation of involved condonation of delay—a matter where judicial discretion a matter where judicial discretion not only be exercised cautiously, but fairly. exercised cautiously, but fairly. In view

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Mahipatray V. Shah, HUF, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3042/MUM/2025[2018 19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Ved, A/R (appeared virtually)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 68Section 69C

root of the matter, we decided to adjudicate it first. The cross objection is barred by limitation. The assessee has requested for condonation of delay. The reasons for delay are mentioned in the application supported by an affidavit on record. The delay is condoned. 5. Briefly stated the facts

Shiv Parvati Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2845/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shiv Parvati Co-Operative Housing Ito Ward 22(3)(1), Society Ltd., Piramal Chamber, Vs. 14Th Road, Khar West, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400052. Pan No. Aadas 1163 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kukreja, CAFor Respondent: 25/06/2025
Section 154Section 234ASection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

have carefully considered the reasons adduced by the 5.2 I have carefully considered the reasons adduced by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. appellant for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. appellant for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The appellant ... reconsideration of the assessee’s application for file of the CIT(A) for reconsideration of the assessee’s application for condonation of delay. The CIT(A) shall afford adequate opportunity condonation of delay. The CIT(A) shall afford adequate opportunity condonation of delay. The CIT(A) shall afford adequate opportunity

Shiv Pratap Singh Kunwar, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Circle 1(1)(1) Meerut, Range-14, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 85/DEL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Shiv Pratap Singh Kunwar, Vs Jurisdictional Assessing 508, Begum Bagh, Meerut, Officer, Circle-1(1)(1), Uttar Pradesh-250001 Range-14, Meerut, Pan-Afmpk3273Q Uttar Pradesh-250001 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Hemant Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2018-19/10029654 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Security Agency. The Appellant Filed His Return Of Income On 17.08.2020, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 46,84,309/- & The Same Was Assessed U/S 143(1) On 11-12-2020 At The Income Of Rs.87,33,921/- Wherein The Cpc Made The Disallowance On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees Contribution Towards Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act. 3. Against This Order, The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before Ld.Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Vide Impugned Order Dated 29.11.2023 Thus, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

delay is not malafide and requested for condonation of the same. He placed reliance on the following judgements and prayed for the condonation of delay:- Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst . Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 (i) Vijay Vishin Meghani, vs The DCIT 398 ITR 250 (Bom.) (ii) Just Steels ... Ludhiana vs Ujagar Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2395/2008 5. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue vehemently opposed the condonation of delay and submits that there is inordinate delay of 338 days and no proper explanation is given except ill health of the assessee which also

Rahul Gupta, Agra vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1), Agra

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

ITA 287/AGR/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Rahul Gupta, Ito, Ward-2(1)(1), H. No.11A, Kala Kunj Maruti Aayakar Bhawan, Estate, Agra, Vs Sanjay Place, Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282007 Uttar Pradesh-282002 Pan-Bskpk2217E Appellant Respondent

Section 144Section 250

appeal is delay of 407 days in filing the appeal before us. In this regard, the assessee has filed a condonation application for condoning the delay, which is reproduced as below:- “MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. The Appellant, Rahul Gupta is filing the present appeal against the order passed ... Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)l, where it was held that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations while considering condonation of delay. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Appellant humbly prays that the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned

Jayhind Buildcon Private Limited, Jamnagar vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

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

ITA 433/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.428 & 433/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 Jayhind Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Of 1St Floor, G.K. Complex, Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Vs. Khodiyar Colony, Main Road, Officer Of The Principal Jamnagar-361 006 Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Pcit, Jamnagr-361 008 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj 9032 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 263

appeals filed by the assessee, are barred by limitation by 141 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition of condonation of delay filed before the Bench, in respect of these two appeals, are similar and identical. Therefore ... 433/Rjt/2024 (AYs 15-16 & 18-19) Jayhind Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. have taken into account a sample copy of petition for condonation of delay, which is filed by the assessee, in ITA No.428/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2015-2016. 3. The Ld. Counsel has explained the reasons for delay stating that assessee

Jayhind Buildcon Private Limited, Jamnagar vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

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

ITA 428/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.428 & 433/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 Jayhind Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Of 1St Floor, G.K. Complex, Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Vs. Khodiyar Colony, Main Road, Officer Of The Principal Jamnagar-361 006 Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Pcit, Jamnagr-361 008 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj 9032 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 263

appeals filed by the assessee, are barred by limitation by 141 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition of condonation of delay filed before the Bench, in respect of these two appeals, are similar and identical. Therefore ... 433/Rjt/2024 (AYs 15-16 & 18-19) Jayhind Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. have taken into account a sample copy of petition for condonation of delay, which is filed by the assessee, in ITA No.428/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2015-2016. 3. The Ld. Counsel has explained the reasons for delay stating that assessee

K.B. Technic Private Limited, Patna vs. Dc/ACIT, Circle-2, Patna

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 130/PAT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Technic Private Ltd., 3-A. Singeshwar Palace, East Boring Canal Road, Patna 800 001. Bihar (PAN: AAACK9200F) for A.Y.2011-12. Subject: Petition for condonation of delay in filing appeal. Reference: Order of CIT(A), NFAC dated 27/09/2023. 03. 04. 05. 06. Page | 2 ITA No. 130/PAT/2025, K.B. Technic Private Limited ... reasons for delay in filing the appeal seem to be genuine and bonafide. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection for condoning the delay. Keeping in view, the condonation petition as well as judicial pronouncements that the case should be decided on merit and justice should not be denied

Ran Singh, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Bhiwadi, Bhiwadi

9. As a result, both the appeals are allowed and while setting aside the impugned orders, the appeals filed by the assessee are restored to the files

ITA 737/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Ms. Twinkle Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

above said captioned appeals have been reportedly filed after a delay of 337 days i.e. beyond prescribed period of limitation. Applications seeking condonation of delay have been filed with the prayer that delay in filing of the appeals be condoned and the appeals be admitted ... were presented on 03.05.2025. Ld. AR has referred to the affidavit of the applicant filed in support of the averments and prayer for condonation of delay. 4. On perusal of the applications seeking condonation of delay and the affidavit filed in support thereof, it transpires that nowhere in the applications