← 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

Shri Radharani Jan Kalyan Sewa Sansthan, Bharatpur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 485/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

days in filing the above mentioned appeals for which the Secretary of the Sansthan has filed an application dated 26-03-2025 for condonation of delay giving therein following reasoning. ‘’In this regard, I would like to submit that the delay was purely unintentional and occurred due to a communication ... SHRI RADHARANI JAN KALYAN SEWA SANSTHAN VS CIT (E), JAIPUR In the light of above circumstances, we earnestly request you kind consideration to condone the delay in filing the appeals and accept our submission. We remain committed to ensuring timely compliance in future.’’ To support the submission as to condonation

Mohan Ramchandani, Banglore vs. ACIT-Intl Tax-2 Ahemdabad, Ahmedabad Gujarat

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

ITA 1944/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Mohan Ramchandani Acit-Intl Tax-2 Flat-11001 Boddaballapur Road Vs. Ahmedabad. Presting Monte Carlo Yelahanka Satelite Town So Bangalore North. Pan : Adgpr 0211 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ar Assessee By : Shri Saresh Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Saresh Kartik Laxmanbhai, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 54FSection 54F(4)

Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (International Taxation)-2, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “the AO”], dated 26.12.2018 for the Assessment Year 2016– 17. Condonation of Delay 2. Before proceeding further, we note that there is a delay of 13 days in filing the present appeal before us, as noted

Pristine Womens Hospital, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, CC-Kolhapur, Kolhapur

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

ITA 848/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.847-848/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2014-15 Vs Acit, Central Circle, Pristine Womens Hospital, Kolhapur 395/2, E Ward Square 9 Building, Next To Basant- Bahar Talkies Assembly Road, Kolhapur-416001 Maharashtra Pan-Aacap7626A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde-CIT
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

delay has been mentioned in the affidavit along with the condonation Persons (AOP). On going through the contents of the application for condonation of delay, we observe that the assessee after passing of the penalty orders filed the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and then during the pendency of appellant ... Court) & the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382) condone the delay of 117 days occurred in filing of the instant two appeals and admit the same for adjudication. 3. The sole greviance in both these

Pristine Womens Hospital, Kolhapur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kolhapur

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

ITA 847/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.847-848/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2014-15 Vs Acit, Central Circle, Pristine Womens Hospital, Kolhapur 395/2, E Ward Square 9 Building, Next To Basant- Bahar Talkies Assembly Road, Kolhapur-416001 Maharashtra Pan-Aacap7626A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde-CIT
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

delay has been mentioned in the affidavit along with the condonation Persons (AOP). On going through the contents of the application for condonation of delay, we observe that the assessee after passing of the penalty orders filed the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and then during the pendency of appellant ... Court) & the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382) condone the delay of 117 days occurred in filing of the instant two appeals and admit the same for adjudication. 3. The sole greviance in both these

Sulekha Pal, Bankura vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Bankura

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

ITA 606/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha &
Section 250Section 69A

seems to be bona fide and a sufficient cause. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in Sulekha pal; A.Y. 2017-18 condoning the delay. Keeping in view the contents of the affidavit seeking condonation of delay as well as the judicial pronouncements in this re- gard that ... Assessing Officer. The Ld. DR did not object to the same. We therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the assessee and restore the issue

Kajla Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Ltd, Purba Medinipur vs. DCIT, Circle 27(1), Haldia

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

ITA 311/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 80P

grounds of appeal: “1) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC was grossly erred in not condoning the delay of 100 days in filing the appeal and consequently not admitting for adjudication. 2) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case ... action of Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC in not condoning the delay of 100 days thereby not admitting the appeal for adjudication is highly arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted to the facts of the case and untenable in law in view of several decided case laws on this issue. 3) For that

M/S. Safal Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2491/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

Registry. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 162 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “The appellant do hereby most respectfully submits before your honours that in the present case ... order, there is a delay of 178 days. In view of the facts stated hereinabove, the appellant do hereby most respectfully request for condonation of delay. For this act of kindness, the appellant as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 1.2. Considering the application for condonation of delay

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Multiplex Vyapaar Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2488/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat, Kolkata Were Collected & Prepared. 06.12.2024 2Nd Appeal Was Filed.

Section 148Section 148ASection 250

time barred by 67 days and the CO No. (32/Kol/2025) is time barred by 28 days. The Department has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay as under: Dates Events/Reasons 24.07.2024 Order of CIT(A) was received in the O/o Pr. CIT-2, Kol 22.09.2024 Due date for filing ... notice U/s148, as well as collecting and arranging the required documents/files for the 2nd appeal. Therefore, it is requested to kindly condone the delay of 75 days in filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata for the sake of substantial justice. Verification I, the undersigned do hereby verify

A/M Athanuramman and Kuppiyannaswamy Thirukoil Annadhanam Scheme Fund, Erode vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 1278/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1277 & 1278/Chny/2025 A/M Athanuramman & Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Kuppiyannaswamy Thirukoil (Exemptions), Annadhaanam Scheme Fund, A/M Chennai. Athanuramman & Kuppiyannaswamy Thirukoil, Muthur Kangayam Taluk, Erode 638 105. [Pan:Aabta7627E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 20.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai In Rejecting Form 10Ab In Respect Of Seeking Registration Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Seeking Approval Under Section 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 282Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

sake of convenience. 3. We find both the appeals are filed with a delay of 32 days. The assessee filed affidavits for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide

A/M Athanuramman and Kuppiyannaswamy Thirukoil Annadhaanam Scheme Fund, Erode vs. CIT, Exemptiions, Chennai

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

ITA 1277/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1277 & 1278/Chny/2025 A/M Athanuramman & Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Kuppiyannaswamy Thirukoil (Exemptions), Annadhaanam Scheme Fund, A/M Chennai. Athanuramman & Kuppiyannaswamy Thirukoil, Muthur Kangayam Taluk, Erode 638 105. [Pan:Aabta7627E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 20.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai In Rejecting Form 10Ab In Respect Of Seeking Registration Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Seeking Approval Under Section 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 282Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

sake of convenience. 3. We find both the appeals are filed with a delay of 32 days. The assessee filed affidavits for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide

Govindarajan Allam Bala, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1272/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1272/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Govindarajan Allam Bala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No. 149, 2Nd Floor, Non Corporate Ward 1(2), Kodambakkam High Road, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aftpg2676Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Rajesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 701 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 701 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, 2 I.T.A. No.1272/Chny/25 we find the reasons stated

Sivasubramaniam Banurekha, Cuddalore vs. ITO Ward 1, Cuddalore

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

ITA 1269/CHNY/2025[2015 - 2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1269/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sivasubramaniam Banurekha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 81, Seetharam Nagar, Cuddalore Court Ward 1, Buildings S.O., Cuddalore 607 001. Cuddalore. [Pan:Bmkpb4558D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

year 2015-16. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 213 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we 2 I.T.A. No.1269/Chny/25 find the reasons stated

Historical Cars Association of India, Chennai vs. CIT(Exemption), Chennai

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

ITA 2834/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2834/Chny/2024 Historical Cars Association Of India, Vs. The Commissioner Of 144/7, Rayala Techno Park, Old Income Tax (Exemption), Mahabalipuram Road, Kottivakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 041. [Pan:Aafch2422M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 80G

I.T.A. No.2834/Chny/24 3. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 67 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. On examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing

Incometax Officer, Thriuvallur vs. Gt60 Arungulam Primary Agri Cooperative Credit Society, Tiruttani

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

ITA 2781/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2781/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Gt60 Arungulam Primary Agri Ward 1, Cooperative Credit Society, Tiruvallur. No. 1, Periya Theru, Thumbikulam Village, Thalavedu Post & Taluk, Tiruvallur 631 212. [Pan: Aabag2568F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Malar Mannan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 24 Days. The Ito, Ward 1, Tiruvallur Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Malar Mannan, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 24 days. The ITO, Ward 1, Tiruvallur filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said 2 I.T.A. No.2781/Chny/24 affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the Appellant

Mahim United Industrial Premises Co Op Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 21(2)(2), Piramal Chamber

In the result, application for condonation of

ITA 2306/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(1)Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

explain the facts that there was/ is reasonable cause for delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) and again reasonable cause for condoning further delay of 1156 days in all three years in filing appeal before Tribunal and only on explaining the reasonable and sufficient cause, he will ... liberty to argue merits of the case. 3. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that he has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. The assessee has also filed affidavit of Santosh Harichand Jagtap and Stefan Richard Moraes. It was argued that

Mahim United Industrial Premises Co Op Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 21(2)(2), Piramal Chamber

In the result, application for condonation of

ITA 2305/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(1)Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

explain the facts that there was/ is reasonable cause for delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) and again reasonable cause for condoning further delay of 1156 days in all three years in filing appeal before Tribunal and only on explaining the reasonable and sufficient cause, he will ... liberty to argue merits of the case. 3. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that he has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. The assessee has also filed affidavit of Santosh Harichand Jagtap and Stefan Richard Moraes. It was argued that

Mahim United Industrial Premises Co Op Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 21(2)(2), Piramal Chambers

In the result, application for condonation of

ITA 2304/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(1)Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

explain the facts that there was/ is reasonable cause for delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) and again reasonable cause for condoning further delay of 1156 days in all three years in filing appeal before Tribunal and only on explaining the reasonable and sufficient cause, he will ... liberty to argue merits of the case. 3. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that he has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. The assessee has also filed affidavit of Santosh Harichand Jagtap and Stefan Richard Moraes. It was argued that

Shri Devinder Parkash Vijay, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-44(5), Delhi

In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 157 days in filing

ITA 2096/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 17.07.2025 Date of pronouncement: | 17.07.2025 ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The Assessee’s application for condonation of delay of 157 days in filing appeal and appeal are against order dated 27.09.2023 of Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC ... dated 24.12.2019, appellant/assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which were dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2023. 4. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred application for condonation of delay of 157 days in filing appeal and appeal. 5. Learned Authorised Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that due to financial and personal issues, there

Sh. Mahadev Shikari, U.S.Nagar vs. ITO, Rudrapur

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 221/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)

Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee along with the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal narrating that the Assessee is a an illiterate senior citizen and due to communication gap, the Appeal could not be filed ... time before the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condone the delay and decided the Appeal on its merit. Thus, sought for allowing the present Appeal. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that there is an ordinate delay

Divine Educational and Charitable Trust, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Hyderabad

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

ITA 329/CTK/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Commissioner Of Income Tax Divine Educational & (Exemption), Hyderabad Charitable Trust Aayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Vs. Ward-10, New Rajabati Hyderabad-500004, Nayagarh, Odisha-752069 Telangana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aactd1099G Assessee By : Shri Sk Sarangi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri SK Sarangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty

delay in fling the application. It was the submission that with effect from 01.10.2024 the ld. CIT(E) has power to condone the delay. It was submitted by the ld. AR that one opportunity may be granted to the Divine Educational and Charitable Trust; A.Y. 2025-26 assessee to approach ... condonation of delay and reconsider the registration. 04. The ld. CIT DR did not raise any objection to the same. 05. We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the ld. CIT(E) has the power to condone the delay, in the interest of justice, the issues