“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

Himansu Sekhar Rout, Balasore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Balasore

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

ITA 319/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.319/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Himansu Sekhar Rout, Vs The Ito, Ward-1, Balasore, At-20, Uttareswar, Po/Ps: Soro, Dist: Balasore-756045 Pan No. : Ajwpr 2203 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Nishanth Rao B, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao B, Sr.DR

appeal of the assessee is barred by 418 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with affidavit stating therein the assessee was seriously suffering from severe neurological disease, for which he admitted in the hospital and treatment was going

Madhya Pradesh Bhoj Open University, Bhopal vs. NFAC, Delhi

ITA 926/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253

appeal of the assessee on grounds stated therein. The core ground and reasons for dismissal of first appeal under the Act was non condonation of delay of 239 days in preferring the first appeal under the Act as no sufficient cause shown. 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved ... fairly submitted that there was indeed a delay of 239 days in preferring the first appeal and that no application for condonation of delay separately and independently was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). That in response to the deficiency letters dated 20.09.2024 and 26.09.2024 the assessee

Madhya Pradesh Bhoj Open University, Bhopal vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 925/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253

Bhoj Open University ITA Nos. 925&926/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 The core ground and reasons for dismissal of first appeal under the Act was non condonation of delay of 239 days in preferring the first appeal under the Act as no sufficient cause shown. 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved ... fairly submitted that there was indeed a delay of 239 days in preferring the first appeal and that no application for condonation of delay separately and independently was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). That in response to the deficiency letters dated 20.09.2024 and 26.09.2024 the assessee

Subodhchand Soni, Sendhwa vs. AO Au NFAC Delhi, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 892/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 253(5)

Form No. 36, hence this appeal is time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit on stamp. Referring to contents of same, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a senior person suffering from heart disease since ... revenue for imposition of cost upon assessee and also to remand this matter to the file of AO. Accordingly, we condone the delay and remand this matter to AO subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by assessee to “Prime Minister National Relief Fund” and submission

Ajay Kumar Agrawal, Gumasta Nagar, Indore vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 853/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Rajasthan State Bharat Scout and Guide, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 382/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 11(5)

days respectively in filing the appeals by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee has filed two applications for condonation of delay relating to Assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12. The narration as made in the condonation application for the assessment year 2010-11 is reproduced ... under:- ‘’Application for Condonation of delay u/s 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hon'ble Sirs, Most respectfully submitted that the income tax assessment of the Trust for the Assessment Year 2010-11 was completed under Section 147 r.ws 144. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the appellant

Rajasthan State Bharat Scout and Guide, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Holding Charge of ITO Exemptions, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 381/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 11(5)

Varsha Jain, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 240/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Ms. Prabha Rana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 249

proceeding is bad in law and facts. 9. Whether there is any delay in filing of appeal (if yes, please attach application seeking condonation of delay) - No 2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte by holding that the assessee

Baljit Singh, Rupnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ropar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 295/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 295/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम Shri Baljit Singh, The Ito, Village Chalaki Tejpur, Ward 2(2), Vs Chamkaur Sahib, Ropar. Ropar (Punjab). "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Fhnps5198J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Registry has pointed out that appeal is time barred by 424 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is placed in the Paper Book from page Nos. 1 to 4. The assessee has filed an affidavit alongwith the application. It has been pleaded that ... also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction

Maharanyam Sri Muralidhara Swamiji Vedha Ashram, Manthenavaripalem vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 708/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, K. SatyanarayanaFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iv)

insertion of proviso to 12A(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where, the appellant can file an application with reasons for condonation of delay in filing of application. Since the assessee neither explained the case with relevant details nor filed any petition for condonation of delay, the learned ... evidences to prove carrying-out charitable activities in accordance with it’s objects. Further, the assessee claims to have filed a petition for condonation of delay in terms of amended provisions which is applicable from 01.10.2024. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that

Maharanyam Sri Muralidhara Swamiji Vedha Ashram, Manthenavaripalem vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 707/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, K. SatyanarayanaFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iv)

Sri Sai Construction Co, Nizamabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1, Nizamabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 670/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay and pleaded for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons explained by the assessee for not filing the appeal within the time before the Tribunal ... Tribunal on 17.04.2025 with a delay of 321 days. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, 3 ITA.No.670/Hyd./2025 pleaded to condone the delay of 321 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal in the interest of substantial justice. 3. Dr. Sachin Kumar, learned Sr. AR for Revenue

Red Rope Movement, Secunderabad vs. CIT (Exemption) Ward-1(3), Hyd

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

ITA 187/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.187/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25) Red Rope Movement Vs. Cit (Exemptions) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaabr4096D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ms.Chrysolyte Sanamanda & Ca Velan Sailas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22/11/2024 Of The Learned Cit (Exemptions), For The 2024-25 Whereby The Application Of The Assessee For Approval U/S 80G(5) Of The Act Was Rejected.

For Appellant: Ms.Chrysolyte Sanamanda and CA Velan SailasFor Respondent: : Shri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

Rope Movement Secunderabad 2. There is a delay of 5 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is duly supported by an affidavit. 3. We have heard the learned AR as well as the learned DR on the condonation ... satisfied that the assessee was having a reasonable cause for the delay of 5 days in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 5 days in filing the present appeal. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page

Venkat Reddy Beeragudem, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-13(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1276/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, GBS MaitreyaFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 69

appeal before the Tribunal. The 2 ITA.No.1276/Hyd./2024 assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay and pleaded for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons explained by the assessee for not filing the appeal within the time before the Tribunal ... delay of 101 days in filing the instant appeal before the Tribuanl. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay of 101 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal in the interest of substantial justice. 3. Dr. Sachin Kumar, learned Sr. AR for Revenue

Anil Singh, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 49(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 531/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.531/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Anil Singh Vs Ito Ward-49(1), Kolkata/Nfac 4, Railway Gate, Lalkuthi, Kamarhati, Kolkata Pan No. : Bflps 0954 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Jcit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29.07.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 168 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Delay, Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr.Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, Delay Of 168 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That This Is A Case Of Reopening & Issuance Of Notice U/S.148 Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Notice

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sima Das Biswas, JCIT-Sr.DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 151

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 168 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons for delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld. Sr.DR also did not raise any serious objection ... condone the delay. Accordingly, delay of 168 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that this is a case of reopening and issuance of notice u/s.148

Pramod Lakra Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -11(1), Kolkata vs. Nis Management Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals for AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14

ITA 189/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

both the appeals filed by the Revenue are barred by limitation by 387 days. An affidavit, which is in effect an application, seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the Revenue stating as under: ITA No. 188/KOL/2025: “Dates Events/Reasons 04.10.2023 Order of CIT(A) was received ... 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 415 days in filing appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata for the sake of substantial justice.” 1.2. Considering the application for condonation of delay

Pramod Lakra Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Nis Management Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals for AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14

ITA 188/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Sarnath Co-Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2550/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan1. Ita No. 2548/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 2549/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 2550/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2020-21) Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. 59-B, Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Breach Candy, Mumbai-400 026 Pan: Aaaas3230K Ito Ward 15(1)(4), Vs. Mumbai. (Appellant) Assessee Represented By Department Represented By Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : : : : (Respondent) Shri Pawan Choudhary, Ld. Ar Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. Dr.) 02.07.2025 16.07.2025 Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan (J.M.): 1. These Appeals Are Filed By The Appellant/Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.02.2025 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/Jcit (A)-4, Hyderabad [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)"], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act"] For The A.Y. 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2020-21 Respectively, Wherein The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Dismissed Being Barred By Limitation & The Ld. Cit(A) Has Refused To Condone The Delay Stating That The Assessee Has Failed To Show Sufficient Cause For Condonation Of Delay. 2. Since The Facts Of All The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Exactly Same, Parties Are Same, Also The Order Of The Same Date & The Matter Involved Is Also Similar Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Disallowance Of Interest Amount Earned From Deposit Of Interest With The Cooperative Banks & Was Claimed As Deduction U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act For The Different

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

respectively, wherein the appeals of the assessee are dismissed being barred by limitation and the Ld. CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay stating that the assessee has failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 2. Since the facts of all the appeals filed by the assessee ... examined the record. At the outset, Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) who did not consider the same and dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding on merit. It is further argued

Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2549/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Sarnath Co-Op Housing Society Ltd, Bhulabhai Desai vs. CIT(Appeal), Piramal Chamber

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2548/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan1. Ita No. 2548/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 2549/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 2550/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2020-21) Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. 59-B, Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Breach Candy, Mumbai-400 026 Pan: Aaaas3230K Ito Ward 15(1)(4), Vs. Mumbai. (Appellant) Assessee Represented By Department Represented By Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement (Respondent) Shri Pawan Choudhary, Ld. Ar Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. Dr.) 02.07.2025 16.07.2025 Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan (J.M.): 1. These Appeals Are Filed By The Appellant/Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.02.2025 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/Jcit (A)-4, Hyderabad [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)"], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act"] For The A.Y. 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2020-21 Respectively, Wherein The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Dismissed Being Barred By Limitation & The Ld. Cit(A) Has Refused To Condone The Delay Stating That The Assessee Has Failed To Show Sufficient Cause For Condonation Of Delay. 2. Since The Facts Of All The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Exactly Same, Parties Are Same, Also The Order Of The Same Date & The Matter Involved Is Also Similar Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Disallowance Of Interest Amount Earned From Deposit Of Interest With The Cooperative Banks & Was Claimed As Deduction U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act For The Different

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)