← 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

The Kotla Bhari Milk Producers Society Ltd., Khanna vs. ITO, Khanna

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 381/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(b)

facts, circumstances of the case and in law the lid ADIT/JCIT- (Appeals). Guwhati erred in rejecting in prayer of the appellant for condonation of delay in filing appeal although there was sufficient cause within the meaning of Sec. 249(3) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 for delay in tiling ... That under the facts, circumstances of the case and in law the Ed. ADIT/ JCII- (Appeals) has not exercised his power to condone the delay in tiling the appeal in a pragmatic manner to advance the cause of substantial justice notwithstanding that there was inordinate delay of 3350 days

Babusingh Bhimsingh Rajpurohit, Pune vs. I, T.O Ward-9(3), Pune

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

ITA 1479/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1479/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Babusingh Bhimsingh V The Income Tax Officer, Rajpurohit, S Ward-9(3), Pune. Srv No.13, Op.Santosh Mangal Karyalaya, Near 16 No.Bus Stop, Thergaon, Pune – 411033. Mahrashtra. Pan: Aarpr6622G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025

Section 144Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

purpose. Delay: We found that there is a delay in filing appeal before the ITAT. Assessee filed an Affidavit and pleaded for the condonation of delay. We have perused the Affidavit and are convinced that there ITA No.1479/PUN/2025 [A] is sufficient and reasonable cause for delay. Accordingly, the Delay

Shivaji Sopan Gote, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

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

ITA 1264/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 143(3)Section 250

Registry has informed that the appeal before this Tribunal is time barred by limitation by 382 days. Application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as follows : “That the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of real estate development and supply of construction materials ... Tribunal has been filed thereafter. There is a delay of 382 days in filing the appeal, for which the appellant seeks condonation. The delay in filing the appeal occurred due to genuine medical reasons. The appellant was suffering from health issues which required regular treatment and medical attention during

Madappa Family Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 33(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 990/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Madappa Family Trust Ito, Ward 33(2), 36 Lala Lajpat Rai Sarani 10, Sir William Jones Sarani, Bhawanipur Middleton Row, Park Street Area, Vs. Kolkata-700020 Kolkata-700071 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaetm9550F Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Dung Dung, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Dung Dung, DR
Section 250(6)

outset, we observe that the appeal has been decided by the ld. CIT (A) by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal of 207 days. The assessee was seeking the condonation of delay on the ground that due to professional misunderstanding on the part of the accountant ... that substantial justice must prevail on the technicalities. Therefore, considering the reason cited before the ld. CIT (A), we condone the delay. Since, the appeal has Madappa Family Trust; A.Y. 2023-24 been dismissed as ex-parte, without deciding the same on merit which is apparently in violation of provision

Devnadi Advisory Private Limited, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 13(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 985/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as it has been filed after a delay of 172 days and there was no sufficient cause has been shown.

Section 148Section 5

case has only prayed that the assessee has to give an opportunity to place its case before the Ld. CIT(A) by condoning the delay as the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not on merit rather he dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay ... prayer of the assessee is to remit the appeal of the assessee back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) after condoning the delay. 5. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in remitting back the appeal of the assessee to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh

Md Parwez Khan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 40(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 839/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 253(3)

Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 53 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: I.T.A. No.: 839/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Md. Parwez Khan. “The undersigned would like to state that ... efforts for filing the appeal in time but all his efforts went in vain. 10. That your good self has the power to condone the delay, which needs to be exercised liberally. The matter relating to condonation of delay has to be judged broadly and not in a pedantic manner

Binod Moktan, Kalimpong vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Kalimpong

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

ITA 353/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.353/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Binod Moktan……...……………………..…………………....Appellant Upper Pedong, P.O Pedong, Kalimpong District, W.B. 734311. [Pan: Aripm6300Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Kalimpong……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 22, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Received Contractual Receipts Of Rs.51,04,000 From M/S. Gajmer Works During The A.Y. 2018-19 & Tax Deducted At Source (Tds) Amounting To Rs.54,040/- Was Also Made On The Said Receipts. However, The Assessee Did Not File Its Return Of Income For The Said Assessment Year. Subsequently, Proceedings Were Initiated Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & A Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued. In Response, The Assessee Filed A Return Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,92,770/-. However, The Assessing Officer Completed The

Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250

learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay, despite the assessee having filed an application for condonation stating valid reasons for the delay. It is argued that the appeal was not adjudicated ... which according to the ld. CIT(A), was not satisfactorily explained. However, the record shows that the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay along with reasons for the delay. The CIT(A), however, did not record a speaking order or provide any discussion on whether the reasons

Himansu Sekhar Senapati, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-22(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 122/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.122/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) M/S Himansu Sekhar Senapati Vs Ito, Ward 22(4), Kolkata 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, 4Th 24, Ns Road, 5Th Floor, Kolkata- Floor, Kolkata-700016, West Bengal 700001, West Bengal Pan No. :Alpps 7769 G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Pallash Chattopadhyay, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Delhi Dated 19.09.2024 Passed For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, I Find That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Belatedly By 46 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Delay In Filing The Appeal Due To Lack Of Knowledge In Passing Of The Order By The Ld. Cit(A), Which Caused The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal Within The Stipulated Period. Ld. Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Objection To Condone The Delay. Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Contentions Made By The Assessee In The Affidavit, I Condone The Delay Of 46 Days In Filing The Present Appeal & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Pallash Chattopadhyay, ARFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr.DR
Section 250

find that the appeal of the assessee is filed belatedly by 46 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating reasons for delay in filing the appeal due to lack of knowledge in passing of the order by the ld. CIT(A), which ... delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated period. Ld. Sr. DR also did not raise any objection to condone the delay. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions made by the assessee in the affidavit, I condone the delay of 46 days

Nagreeka Foils Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 3, Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AYs

ITA 1930/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36

informed that the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2011-12 is barred by limitation by 18 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “On 27th June 2024, we have received the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) - NFAC ... placed before the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal for condonation of the short delay in submission of the appeal.” 1.2. Considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant

Nagreeka Foils Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 6(3), Kolkata

ITA 1789/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 40a

informed that the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2011-12 is barred by limitation by 18 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “On 27th June 2024, we have received the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) NFAC ... placed before the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal for condonation of the short delay in submission of the appeal.” 1.2. Considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant

Nagreeka Foils Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AYs

ITA 1788/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36

informed that the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2011-12 is barred by limitation by 18 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “On 27th June 2024, we have received the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) - NFAC ... placed before the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal for condonation of the short delay in submission of the appeal.” 1.2. Considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant

Senthil Kumar Thangavelu, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 916/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Navneeth N. Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 90

delay in acting upon this information does not qualify as a valid ground for condonation. Accordingly appeal of the assessee was dismissed without condonation of delay. 5. The ld. AR submitted that identically in the case of assessee for AY 2021-22 wherein FTC was denied, the coordinate Bench vide ... order dated 30.4.2025 has condoned the delay of 136 days and remitted the issue back to the file of AO for fresh consideration of FTC. The coordinate Bench further relied upon another decision of coordinate Bench in ITA No.239/Bang/2024 dated 17.4.2024. Therefore he stated that when

Marasanige Chinne Gowda Santhosh, Chikmagalur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur

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

ITA 324/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Marasanige Chinne Gowda Santhosh 189, Marasanigi Village Post Mudigere Ito Chikmagalur Taluk Vs. Ward 1 Chikmagalur 577 124 Chikmagalur Karnataka Pan No : Bhzps2254R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sri Gireesha A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 250Section 253(5)

prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Apex Court, if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalize injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Therefore, this ... Tribunal is bound to remove the injustice by condoning the delay on technicalities. If the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalizing an illegal order which would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the State by retaining the tax relatable thereto. Under the scheme of Constitution

Rampur Laxamana Naik Ravishankar, Tumkur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tiptur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2529/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Rampur Laxamana Naik Ravishankar Tulasi Nivasa 8Th Cross, Vidyanagara Tipturho, Tiptur Ito Vs. Tumkur 572 201 Ward 1 Karnataka Tiptur Pan No :Ajvpr7385P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Gokul, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2025

For Appellant: Sri Gokul, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 154Section 250

appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and accordingly ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay. The ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention to an affidavit dated 21.12.2024in original sworn before the notary public along with ... application for condonation of delay filed before us, wherein the assessee had given the detailed reasons for filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC belatedly which are reproduced below for ease of reference and record: Rampur Laxamana Naik Ravishankar, Tumkur Page 4 of 17 Rampur Laxamana Naik Ravishankar

Sachchiyay Mata Bullion Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4443/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2022-23 Sachchiyay Mata Bullion Pvt. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-4(3)(1), Shop No. 25, Patwa Chawl, Vs. 648, Aayakar Bhavan, Shaikh Menon Street, M.K. Road, Zaveri Bazaar, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002. Pan : Abfcs4174C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain (Virtually Appeared) Revenue By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 23-05-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23, Wherein The Ld.Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 260 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Dt. 30-07-2024 & Has Sustained The Addition Of Rs. 5,40,97,148/- U/S. 68 Of The Act & An Amount Of Rs. 18,84,08,811/- U/S. 37(1) Of The Act. 2. During The Course Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Submitted That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Held That There Was A Delay Of 67 Days In Filing The Appeal & In Absence Of Any Application Moved By The Assessee, Explaining The Reasons

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

filing the appeal and in absence of any application moved by the assessee, explaining the reasons 2 for the delay and seeking condonation of delay, the delay was not condoned and the appeal was not admitted. It was submitted that in the statement of facts submitted before the Ld.CIT ... mentioned in Form-35 that there was a delay in filing the appeal nor any reasons or an application has been filed seeking condonation of delay, the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly held that the delay so happened in filing the appeal cannot be 3 condoned. It was further submitted that

Jan Seva Mandal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward -1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3445/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Jan Seva Mandal, Central Processing Centre Income Vinayalaya, Mahakali Caves Tax Deparment, Bengaluru, Vs. Road, Andheri (East), Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400093. Ward 1(4), Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatj 4868 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan PatelFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

Assessin 18.11.2024, observed that the Assessing Officer as well as the g Officer as well as the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing Form 10B CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing Form 10B CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to condone the delay ... jurisdictional Principal and was advised to approach the jurisdictional Principal and was advised to approach the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner or Chief Commissioner for condonation of delay Commissioner or Chief Commissioner for condonation of delay Commissioner or Chief Commissioner for condonation of delay under Section

Sadhubella Education Society, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption 2(3), Mumbai

ITA 3106/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: the Tribunal after delay of 403 days.4. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record.

For Appellant: Ms. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

Assessment Year 2015-2016, in the identical facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has vide order, dated 16/06/2025, passed in ITA No. 3147/Mum/2025, condoned the delay in filing the appeal accepting identical reasons. 6. Per contra it was the contention of the learned Departmental Representative is that the Assessee has been ... Katiji & others AIR 1987 1353 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court 3 Assessment Year 2010-2011 has, while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay, emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown

Neeta Jigensh Vasariya, Bhayander West vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Thane

ITA 3101/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025

Bench: the CIT(A) in physical form which was later migrated to National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The aforesaid appeal were disposed off by the Learned CIT(A) vide order, dated 19/12/2022. The CIT(A) dismissed the grounds raised by the Assessee observing that the Assessee had failed to bring on record supporting evidence to establish the source of cash and to corroborate the contention that the Assessee was holding cash from the Financial Year 2009-2010 to Financial Year 2016-2017.

For Appellant: Shri Akshit KothariFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others AIR 1987 1353 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay, emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very ... merits after hearing the parties. Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 671 days in filing the present appeal as we are of the considered view that the Assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from

Sebastian Francis Chalissery, Mumbai vs. ITO, Vashi, Navi Mumbai

ITA 3034/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: lower authorities. Due to such incompetency, the assessment was concluded ex-parte without dealing merits, causing serious prejudice to the appellant.

For Appellant: Ms. Shivani ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe
Section 144Section 250Section 69A

filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Though the Assessee had filed affidavit explaining the aforesaid delay the CIT(A) declined to condoned the delay on the ground that the Assessee had failed to show that the delay was caused for reasons beyond the control of the Assessee. During ... Departmental Representative supported the order passed by the CIT(A) and submitted that the Assessee had failed to make out a case for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A) and therefore, the question of examining the merits during the present proceedings did not arise

Omega Infrastructures, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2356/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

Section 147Section 68

there is a delay in filing the present appeal and in this regard, ld. AR has drawn our attention to the application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:- “The appellant has preferred an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income ... days has inadvertently arisen due to above reason and due to reasonable cause. Therefore, it is humbly requested that this application of condonation of delay be allowed in the interest of natural justice and equity and if, the same is not allowed cause of natural justice will suffer as balance