← 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

Mr Chetnarayan Sitaram Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-41(4)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 317/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)
Section 144Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

Registry, the instant appeal is delayed by 404 days. In the application and the affidavit filed by the assessee for the condonation of delay, it is P a g e | 4 A.Y. 2018-19 Chetnarayan Sitaram Singh submitted that he, aged 73 yrs, due to old age he left ... application within such period…. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs serious risk.” We therefore, condone the delay. 4. In this case, assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act on account of non compliance to various notices

Ashok Kamraj Patel, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 2945/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Praksh Kantashok Kamraj Patel Vs National Faceless Assessment 43/F, Hiren Shopping Centre Centre, Delhi M.G. Road, Goregaon West Mumbai-400 062 Pan : Aowpp2441J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe (SR. DR.)

noticed that since the present appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation and no separate application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal; therefore, on this count itself, the present appeal is rejected in limine. Order pronounced in the open court

Ashoka Complex Co Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2938/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Arvind WadkeFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, SR DR
Section 80P(2)(d)

affidavit before the Ld.CIT(A) as proper and sufficient opportunity was not granted by Ld.CIT(A) before rejecting the application of condonation of delay. Whereas, on the contrary, the Ld.DR contested the said plea raised by the assessee and submitted that sufficient opportunity was granted to the assessee and thereafter ... conscious decision was taken by the Ld.CIT(A) regarding dismissal of appeal filed by the assessee as there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 3. Be that as it may, without going into the allegations and counter allegations raised by the respective parties, the Bench

Ashoka Complex Co Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2937/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Arvind WadkeFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, SR DR
Section 80P(2)(d)

affidavit before the Ld.CIT(A) as proper and sufficient opportunity was not granted by Ld.CIT(A) before rejecting the application of condonation of delay. Whereas, on the contrary, the Ld.DR contested the said plea raised by the assessee and submitted that sufficient opportunity was granted to the assessee and thereafter ... conscious decision was taken by the Ld.CIT(A) regarding dismissal of appeal filed by the assessee as there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 3. Be that as it may, without going into the allegations and counter allegations raised by the respective parties, the Bench

ACIT-23(1), Mumbai vs. Chetankumar Kundanmal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2934/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

government setup, it is impermissible for the ld. AO to plead that the files were misplaced and on that vague assertion alone, seek condonation of delay. The statutory limit for filing of the appeals is a mandate that cannot be disregarded on such generalized or unsupported claims. Such colossal lapse

Shubhangi Vidyasagar Chavan, Thane vs. Assessment Unit, Na

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

ITA 2894/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kantshubhangi Vidyasagar Vs. Ito – 2(1) Chavan Thane Aadesh Bunglow, Bright Star Society, Yashsvi Nagar, Balkum, Thane – 400608. Pan/Gir No. Agxpc9519P (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250

justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 3 Shubhangi Vidyasagar Chavan ... cooperation on behalf of the assessee during the proceedings before the revenue authorities therefore a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on account of condonation of delay and also for non appearance before Ld. CIT(A) is imposed upon the assessee which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund

Tara Meera Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2668/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Praksh Kanttara Meera Education Trust Vs Income Tax Officer (Exemption)- 2(4), 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, 41-B, Azad Nagar Road No.2 Off Veera Desai Road, Andheri Cumbala Hills, Pedder Road, West, Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 026 Pan : Aaatt9673J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Aamod Prabhudesai a/wFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 11Section 12

would not be out of place to mention here that assessee had received email on 28/01/2025 that he can apply for condonation of delay in uploading audit report to jurisdictional Commissioner of Income-tax exemption, which also goes to show that there was indeed technical glitches in the software ... have gone through the CBDT circular number 16/2024 dated 18/11/2024 where in powers for condonation of delay in uploading form 10B has been delegated to the respective officers of the department. This fact alone makes it clear that there were technical glitches and the assessee was prevented with the ‘sufficient

Ketan Krishna Belsare, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2653/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Praksh Kantketan Krishna Belsare Vs The Acit, Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai, 901, 9Th Floor, Maharishi A/1003, Panchsheel Heights Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 (West), Mumbai-400 067 Pan : Azhpb3987F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anil Thakkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

outset, we noticed that the assessee has raised additional ground of appeal, thereby challenging the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 3. We are of the view that the additional ground being raised is emanating from the order of the Ld.CIT ... records we find that the appeal of the assessee was filed belatedly by 56 days and in this regard a request for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal was filed, which is extracted below:- “Request for Condonation of delay 1. The Penalty Order was passed on June

Prakash Realty, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2533/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarprakash Realty Vs. Income Tax Officer, 506-509,5Th Floor A Wing Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai Shrikant Chambers, Sion It-Office, Vashi Railway Trombay Road, Chembur Station Building, Navi Mumbai- 400071 Mumbai, Navi Mumbai- 400703 Pan/Gir No. Aamfp1688F (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessment year 2013-14. 2. There is delay of 376 days in filing present appeal and in this regard an affidavit for seeking condonation of delay 2 Prakash Realty has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under: 1, Jagdish Nand Bijlani, Indian Habitant, Adult ... delay in filing appeal before Your Honour. 3 Prakash Realty 4.Hence, the appellant is making this affidavit in support of its application for condonation of delay in filing of an appeal before Hon'ble Tribunal. What is stated herein above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge

M/S. Prabha Samajik Shaikshanik Mahila Mandal, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 2443/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025

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

Section 250

records we notice that there is a delay of 135 days in filing the present appeal. In this regard, an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee. 3. After having heard the arguments of both the parties on the application for seeking condonation of delay ... assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay, which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression 'sufficient cause' liberally, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal before us and consequently the delay is condoned and the appeal is registered to be heard on merits. 4. From

M/S. Prabha Samajik Shaikshanik Mahila Mandal, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 2442/MUM/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025

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

Section 250

records we notice that there is a delay of 135 days in filing the present appeal. In this regard, an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee. 3. After having heard the arguments of both the parties on the application for seeking condonation of delay ... assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay, which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression 'sufficient cause' liberally, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal before us and consequently the delay is condoned and the appeal is registered to be heard on merits. 4. From

Durgadevi Navatra Utsav Samiti Borivali, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 1979/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawaldurgadevi Navatra Utsav Vs. Cit(E) Samiti Room No. 601, 6Th Floor E/7, Jawan Nagar Chs Ltd Cumballa Hill, Mtnl S.V. Road, Opp Mangal Kunj Te Bldg, Pedder Road, Maharashtra – 400092. Ld.Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh, Marg Pan/Gir No. Aadtd9110H (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 253

delay in 480 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. In this regard Ld. AR has filed an application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the basis of 2 Durgadevi Navatra utsav Samiti Borivali., Mumbai. reasons mentioned in the application and reiterated same ... Borivali, Mumbai, having PAN JTDPS1508E, permanently residing at E/7 Jawan Nagar, S.V. Road, Borivali (W) Mumbai-400092, deposed as under, in order to condone the delay in filing the belated appeal u/s. 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai vide ITA No. 1979/M/2025 filed

Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Allahabad vs. The Income Tax Officer- 2(1), Allahabad

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

ITA 28/ALLD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad23 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 249(3)

appeal on merits. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by learned CIT(A) on grounds of limitation. The assessee had requested for condonation of delay, however, the request of the assessee for condonation of delay was not considered favourably by the learned CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeal ... find that the assessee had provided detailed medical papers and medical history of the assessee, in support of the assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the learned CIT(A). It was further pleaded by the assessee that the assessee was suffering from severe disease

Shri Panchtalavada Seva Sahkari Mandli Limited, Amreli vs. The ITO Ward-3(1)(4), Rajkot-Amreli., Amreli

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 118/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.118/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Panchtalavada Seva Sahkari Income Tax Officer, Ward – बनाम Mandali Ltd. 3(1)(4), Rajkot-Amreli, Panchtalavada, Amreli–3650220, Ganga Bhauvan, Keriya /Vs. Gujarat Road, Amreli–365 560 "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं . / Pan/Gir No.: Aaxas 4713 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Devina Patel, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20, Is Directed Against The Order Passed, Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Hyderabad Dated 06.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises, Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc)/Assessing Officer, U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 08.02.2021. 2. At The Outset, Learned Counsel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Has Stated That The Assessee Wants To Withdraw The Present Appeal Because Condonation Of Delay For Filing Income Tax Return U/S 119(2)(B) Of The Act Has Been Condoned Sh. Pssm Ltd.

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250

outset, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has stated that the assessee wants to withdraw the present appeal because condonation of delay for filing income tax return u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act has been condoned Sh. PSSM Ltd. by the Ld. Chief Commissioner of Income

First Dastur Maherji Rana Trust Fund, Surat vs. The CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 489/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.487/Srt/2025 (Hybrid Hearing) Bai Pirojbai Manekji Patel Singaporewalla English School For Girls, Gr. Floor, Parsi Panchayat Office, Shahpore, Surat-395 003 बनाम / Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad, Room No.609, Floor-6, Aayakar Bhavan, Vejalpur, Nr. Sachin Tower, 100 Foot Road, Ahmedabad-380 015 -394 601 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatl 1130 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.488/Srt/2025 The Sorabji Burjorji Dastur Darab Paahalana Trust Fund, Ground Floor, Parsi Panchayat Office, Shahpore, Surat-395 003 बनाम / Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad, Room No.609, Floor-6, Aayakar Bhavan, Vejalpur, Nr. Sachin Tower, 100 Foot Road, Ahmedabad-380 015 -394 601 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt 2648 B (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.489/Srt/2025 First Dastur Maherji Rana Trust Fund Ground Floor, Parsi Panchayat Office, Shahpore, Surat-395 003 बनाम / Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad, Room No.609, Floor-6, Aayakar Bhavan, Vejalpur, Nr. Sachin Tower, 100 Foot Road, Ahmedabad-380 015 -394 601 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt 2651 A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Rakesh Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 212/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA and Shri Vikas Yadav AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 564 days in filing the appeal for which the assessee has filed an application dated 05-05-2025 for condonation of delay giving therein following reasoning. ‘’As the delay occurred due to unavoidable and genuine personal hardship, I was mentally and financially disturbed owing to the deteriorating health ... JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR In view of the foregoing, I humbly pray that the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit it for hearing in the interest of justice.’’ To support the submission as to condonation of delay

Smt. Veena Agarwal, Kanpur vs. Assessing Officer (Special Range), Kanpur

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

ITA 195/LKW/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 253(3)Section 36(1)(va)

been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has I.T.A. No.195/Lkw/2023 Assessment Year ... admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay

Sachin Chawla Ludhiana, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Ludhiana

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 206/CHANDI/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.205/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.206/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Sachin Chawla Ito Ward-2(1) बनाम/ Vs. B-Xxiii, 2945 Link Road Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Ganesh Nagar, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aggpc-0079-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate.) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate.) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271A

registry has noted delay of 283 days in quantum appeal ITA No.205/Chandi/2025 and delay of 130 days in penalty appeal ITA No.206/Chandi/2025. The condonation of delay has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of condonation petition which is accompanied by an affidavit of the accountant of the assessee ... which was being operated by the accountant. The Ld. AR also stated that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals for want of condonation of delay which happened due to same very reasons. In this background, Ld. AR sought adjudication of appeals on merits. The same has been opposed

Sachin Chawla Ludhiana, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Ludhiana

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 205/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.205/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.206/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Sachin Chawla Ito Ward-2(1) बनाम/ Vs. B-Xxiii, 2945 Link Road Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Ganesh Nagar, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aggpc-0079-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate.) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate.) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271A

registry has noted delay of 283 days in quantum appeal ITA No.205/Chandi/2025 and delay of 130 days in penalty appeal ITA No.206/Chandi/2025. The condonation of delay has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of condonation petition which is accompanied by an affidavit of the accountant of the assessee ... which was being operated by the accountant. The Ld. AR also stated that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals for want of condonation of delay which happened due to same very reasons. In this background, Ld. AR sought adjudication of appeals on merits. The same has been opposed

DCIT, Circle-I, Ludhiana vs. Adinath Textiles Limited, Ludhiana

In the result both the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 122/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.” 4. The cross objections have been filed late by 68 days, for which, the condonation of delay was filed on 1st of August 2024, along with affidavit of Senior Vice President of the company namely, Sh. Arun Kapoor ... thus, it was pleaded that there was no deliberate attempt for late filing of cross objections and, thus, it was prayed to condone the delay in filing cross-objections. The department Representative argued that the issue may be decided on merits of the case. We have considered the application