← 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

Esscon Integrated Security Solutions Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-8(1), Delhi

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

ITA 162/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Him :-

Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 272

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal by rejecting the application condonation of delay in filling appeal, though the same was filled with a sufficient cause along with affidavit of director. 2. That on the facts and circumstances ... assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. NFAC who vide order dated 11-11-2024 dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. Being aggrieved the order the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 5. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the relevant materials available on record

Rajesh, Noida vs. ITO Ward-5(3)(1), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 103/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the same. Thus, the impugned order has not merit as provided under Section 250 of the Act.

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

grounds of Appeal shall be filed at the time of hearing of the instant Appeal. 3. The assessee has filed the application for condonation of delay for 37 days. In the application the assessee has stated that due to illness he has not filed the appeal within prescribed time ... limit. The assessee has shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time limit. Therefore, we allow the application for condonation of delay. Delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. In this case

Rajesh, Noida vs. ITO Ward-5(3)(1), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 102/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the same. Thus, the impugned order has no merit as provided under Section 250 of the Act.

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

grounds of appeal shall be filed at the time of hearing of the instant Appeal. 3. The assessee has filed the application for condonation of delay for 37 days. In the application the assessee has stated that due to illness he has not filed the appeal within prescribed time limit ... assessee has shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time limit. Therefore, we allow the application for condonation of delay. Delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. The assessee is a resident individual engaged in agricultural activities and also a handicapped person. The assessment proceedings

Braham, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 4009/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: BEFORESHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 69

craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 3. The assessee has filed the application for condonation of delay for 1114 days. In the application the assessee has stated that appeal should have filed before the 09.12.2019 but was filed ... Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, [1987], 167 ITR 471. 4. The Ld. DR has submitted that no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay. The assessee has failed to file the appeal within the time limit. 5. From the perusal of the application it shows that the assessee

Ravindra Nath Patel, Maharajganj vs. Income Tax Officer, Gorkhpur

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

ITA 27/ALLD/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad24 Jul 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaravindra Nath Patel Kasmaria V. Income Tax Officer Kasmaria, Maharajganj, Uttar Aayakar Bhawan, Income Pradesh-273303. Tax Office, Anand Nagar Road, Maharajganj, Up- 273165. Pan: Akbpp8792R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms Vidisha Srivastava, Adv Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms Vidisha Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

course of hearing of the appeal.” 1.1 The appeal is barred by limitation by 60 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative ... Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. Being satisfied with the reasons sated in application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal; therefore, we condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. (2) The facts

Bhavesh Ishwarlal Panchasara, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot

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

ITA 95/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.95/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16) Bhavesh Ishwarlal बनाम Assistant Commissioner Of Panchasara Income-Tax, Circle-3(1), Rajkot /Vs. 1, Mehulnagar Main Road, Near Khodiyar Temple, Rajkot-360 002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aodpp 1375 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nimish Vayawala, Ld.A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

decided on merit. 4. On the other hand, the Learned Senior DR for the Revenue submitted that Bench may decide the matter of condonation of delay as it thinks fit. 5. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. In the affidavit, it is submitted that ... appellate proceedings; and moreover, the assessee was not aware about passing the appellate order. We note that reasons given in the petition for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. Considering all these facts, we find

Mani Bhushan Kumar, Patna vs. CIT, Patna

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

ITA 642/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250

informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 58 days. An application along with the affidavit seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “The NFAC has passed order u/s 250 dated 16/07/2024. There was no communication of uploading ... kindly be condoned and the appeal may kindly be heard on merits.” 1.2. In the affidavit filed by the assessee for condonation of delay, the assessee has stated that there was no communication of uploading of the appeal order dated 16.07.2024 either on the registered email or registered mobile number

Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer-3(5), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 854/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 54B

asessee’s case is well covered by decision of ITAT, Indore and having full merit. Ld. DR for Revenue expressed no objection against condonation of delay and left the matter to the wisdom of Bench. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact ... also noteworthy that the non-service of notices through physical mode desired by assessee is the main reason of assessee for condonation of delayed filing of present appeal and the Ld. DR for revenue has not objected to condonation of delay (Refer earlier Para). Further, a bare reading of para

Rameshwar Lal Vyas, Beawar, Ajmer vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1257/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Vinod Gupta CA, Ld. AR
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69

knowledge that the appeal of the assessee is time barred by 361 days. On this issue, the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith his affidavit. It is observed that there was a deficiency in the affidavit filed before us which has been removed by the assessee ... Form no. 35. Considering the affidavit filed by the assessee and principle of justice, taking a lenient view, we deem it fit to condone the delay of 361 days in filing of appeal. 4. We have gone through the order of the AO passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, order

Daljeet Singh, Jind vs. Assessing Officer, Jind

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 847/CHANDI/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 847/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Daljeet Singh, The Ao, बनाम House No. 469/24, Ward 15, Jind Employees Colony Vs. Rohtak Road Bye Pass, Jind 126102 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Bmips1734G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

heard before issuing order. 4. Case Laws- (i) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 that "condonation of delay reasonable cause delay of 1297 days in filing appeal being on account of lapse on the part of consultant and not being malafide, there ... valid reason warranting condonation of delay and admission of appeal". (ii) Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh (Supreme Court) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2395 of 2008 dated 26.06.2010 Unless mala fides are writ large, delay should be condoned. 847-Chd-2024 Daljeet Singh, Jind 3 Matters should be disposed of on merits

Nanha S/O Sh. Dewa Singh, Jind vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Jind

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical Purposes

ITA 1198/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1198/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nanha S/O Sh. Dewa Singh, The Ito, बनाम C/O Navdeep Monga,Advocate, Ward-2, House No. 38, Ist Floor, Jind Vs. Bank Colony, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh 160101 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Apupn5818A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing )

For Appellant: Sh.Navdeep Monga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 234A

appeal before the Tribunal. The Counsel of the Assessee has filed an application dt. 26.12.2024 on behalf of the Assessee, making prayer for condonation of delay. The application of the Assessee is as under: 1198-Chd-2024 Nanha S/o Sh. Dewa Singh 4 1198-Chd-2024 Nanha S/o Sh. Dewa ... Nanha S/o Sh. Dewa Singh 6 4. We have considered the detailed reasoning given in the application and we are inclined to condone the delay. 5. The ld. DR did not have any objection for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned

Hemophilia Federation - Nashik Chapter, Nashik vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 871/PUN/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.871/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2025-26 Hemophilia Federation- Cit (Exemption), Pune Nashik Chapter, Niramay Vs Nursing Home, Adwait Colony, Canada Corner, Nashik-422009 Maharashtra Pan No. Aaech1749N Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue

Section 80G(5)

r.w.s. Rule 11AA (8) of the Income Tax Rules. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 119 days . Application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit mentioning a reasonable cause for the said delay stands filed. Both sides heard. Considering the contents of the affidavit and also taking ... Apex Court and in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382), we hereby condone the delay of 119 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee filed application

Isdec India Private Limited, Milkhiram Market, Sakchi, Jamshedpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowringhee Square

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

ITA 730/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250

explain the reasons for such delay and without taking cognizance of the evidences and documents submitted in support of the application for condonation of delay, thereby rendering the dismissal of appeal unjustified and unsustainable. 4. Ground 4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... years, however, the actual delay is approx. 7 months which is evident as per records and the Appellant had filed the application for condonation of delay along with supporting documents 6. Ground 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred

Suvendu Chatterjee, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-48, Kolkata

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

ITA 2690/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2690/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Suvendu Chatterjee, Vs Dcit, Circle-48, Kolkata 8D, Krishna Laha Lane, 1St Floor, Near Aituc Office, Kolkata-700012 Pan No. : Acbpc 4347 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Miraz D. Shah, Ar नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.04.2018 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-14, Kolkata For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Shankar Naskar, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 92 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Accordingly, The Delay Of 92 Days Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Ao Has Made Disallowance Of Rs.19,55,401/- Representing Alleged Service Tax Received But Not Deposited To The Account Of The Government. Consequently, The Ao Has Added The Same As The Income Of The Assessee. It Was The Submission That 2 The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Order Of The Ao Without Considering The Submission Of The Assessee That The Assessee Has Not Received The Said Service Tax Amount. The Assessee Has Also Filed An Affidavit Before Me Which Reads As Under :-

For Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. DR

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 92 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating sufficient reasons which are plausible and not found to be false. Accordingly, the delay of 92 days is condoned

ITO, Kolkata vs. Blackberry Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1234/KOL/2023[2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 68

Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 49 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “In this case, date of filing of appeal before Hon'ble ITAT has already been expired ... been received from o/o PCIT-2, Kolkata. Kindly condone the said delay for filing 2nd Appeal.” 1.2. Considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the Revenue had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within

Aa520 Veerampalayam Pacs Ltd., Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 593/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:593/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Aa520 Veerappampalayam Ito, Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Vs. Ward -2 (1), Society Ltd., Erode. 1, Aa520, Veerappampalayam, Veerappampalayam Bo, Attavanai Hanumanpalli, Erode – 638 101. [Pan:Aadaa-8893-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Kumar Chandan, Jcit (Virtual)

For Appellant: Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kumar Chandan, JCIT (Virtual)
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 2(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

return of income within the time frame prescribed under section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. B. Circular No.13/2023 allows condonation of delay for deduction u/s. 80P 2) The CIT(A) failed to see that CBDT had issued a Circular No. 13/2023 dated 26.07.2023 allowing the co-operative ... societies to claim deduction u/s 80P by filing condonation of delay Petition u/s.119(2)(b) to treat the return as filed u/s 139(1). Concept of Members and Deduction u/s.80P 3) The CIT(A) refused to hear the case on merits and failed to appreciate that the appellant

T.T.92.Kadayanallur P.U. Area Teachers Co - Op Thrift Credit Society, Tenkasi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 1352/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri G. Reddi Prakash, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

within prescribed due date. On appeal, the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal, holding that he does not have authority to condone the delay. Subsequently, the assessee has filed condonation petition before CCIT, Madurai u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative ... assessee submitted that a petition for condonation of delay in filing the return of income under section 119(2)(b) of the Act has already been filed and ITA No.1352/Chny/2025 TT 92 Kadayanallur PU Area Teachers Co-op. Thrift Credit Society is pending before the CCIT, Madurai. Accordingly

Sohanlalji Ashok Seervi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 509/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Sohanlalji Ashok Seervi, Vs. Ito, No.64, Arunachalam, Mudhaliyer Road, Ward – 1(2)(2), Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 051, Karnataka. Pan : Fgzps 2712 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nitin, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep S, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Nitin, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 144

Assessment Year is 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 436 days in filing this appeal. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by affidavit stating therein the reasons for late filing of this appeal. We have perused the reasons stated in the affidavit for belated ... view that there is reasonable cause and no latches can be attributed to the assessee for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay of 436 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. Page 2 of 3 3. At the very

Madanlal Mohanlal Hingad, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 575/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) Madanlal Mohanlal Hingad Acit, Cpc Cell – Tds / Room No. 31 & 32, Wadi Mansion, Vs Ito, Ward – 20(1)(1) G.R. Road, Hindmata, Dadar, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai – 400014. Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012. [Pan: Aaaph5096B] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

vide order dated 16.03.2023, however, this appeal is filed in 2025. Thus, there is inordinate delay of about two years, no application for condonation of delay in filing appeal is filed by assessee. Similarly, the order under section 200A was passed by assessing officer ... before ld. CIT(A) was filed only on 07.11.2022, thus, there was an inordinate delay even in filing first appeal. No application for condonation of delay is filed by assessee, thus, the appeal of assessee may be dismissed. 3. We have considered the submissions of learned Senior Departmental Representative

The National Sodality Centre, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3470/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B. Patel, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. D/R
Section 11Section 143(1)

Lucknow dismissed the appeal on the ground that the AO as well as Appellate authorities do not have the power to grant condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10B. 3. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the audit report in Form No. 10B had been filed