← 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

Diamond Concrete Structures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, substantial

ITA 2324/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Diamond Concrete Structures Private Ito – 6(2)(1), Mumbai Limited Vs Aayakar Bhavan, 101, Sunder Apartment, Nesbit Road, Maharishi Karve Road, Mazgaon Circle, Mumbai – 400010. Churchgate, [Pan No. Aadcd6138N] Mumbai-400020. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

decided on merit. 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue on the plea of condonation of delay would submit that assessee has taken a general stand that impugned order was not served upon the assessee. After faceless appeal system, the order ... considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the lower authorities carefully. Firstly, I shall consider the plea of condonation of delay in filing appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that at the time of filing appeal before ld. CIT(A), the assessee

Gopala Holding Private Limited, Prabhadevi vs. Income Tax Officer7(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 2948/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 250

days. 8. Hence, this affidavit is being made in support of my application to the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Whatever is stated hereinabove is true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.” 2. 1. From the above ... Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471. 2. 2. On the contrary, the Ld.DR though vehemently opposed the condonation of delay was of the opinion that the issue should be decided on merits. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light

Rishi Raj Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 937/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Khettra Mohan Royassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69B

filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed condonation application stating as under: “1. This is an application for the condonation of delay in filing of appeal before Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 22.07.2022 under section ... hence appeal was not filed before ITAT. He further advised the applicant to immediately file the appeal before ITAT along with the condonation of delay against the order dated. 22.07.2022 passed by the CIT(A) 3 Rishi Raj Jain v. ACIT A.Y. 2018-19 7. Thereafter, the applicant immediately took

Surya Laxmi Industries, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5103/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshsurya Laxmi Industries, Vs. Dcit, 7-B, Bigjos Tower, Netaji New Delhi Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abwfs8662D Assessee By : Shri Lalit Mohan, Adv Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80I

only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld JCIT was justified in condoning the delay in filing of appeal of the assessee by Surya Laxmi Industries 1007 days and dismissing the appeal inlimine in the facts and circumstances of the instant case ... preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A) on 14.8.2024 against the intimation dated 12.10.2021 u/s 143(1) of the Act along with condonation of delay for the delay of 1007 days. The ld CIT(A) completely ignoring the aforesaid background of the facts and the alternative remedial measures being

Late Sh Raja Ram Through Legal Heir Virendra Yadav, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

ITA 1168/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Madhav Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, SR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Yadav (AY: 2010-11) 2. The quantum appeal is barred by limitation for about 30 days in support of which an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee. The previous counsel engaged in the matter received the communication of the order passed by the First Appellate ... First Appellate Authority was gathered late by the assessee and affidavit explaining such fact is also forthcoming along with the application for condonation of delay; such affidavit has been affirmed by the legal heir of the assessee the said explanation rendered by the assessee seems to be genuine which

Late Sh Raja Ram Through Legal Heir Virendra Yadav, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1167/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royita Nos.1167 & 1168/Del/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Madhav Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, SR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

yadav (AY: 2010-11) 2. The quantum appeal is barred by limitation for about 30 days in support of which an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee. The previous counsel engaged in the matter received the communication of the order passed by the First Appellate ... First Appellate Authority was gathered late by the assessee and affidavit explaining such fact is also forthcoming along with the application for condonation of delay; such affidavit has been affirmed by the legal heir of the assessee the said explanation rendered by the assessee seems to be genuine which

Amar Mohan Sahoo, Angul vs. The Income Tax Officer, Angul Ward, Angul

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

ITA 337/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.337/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Amar Mohan Sahoo Vs Ito, Angul Ward, Angul S/O Trilochan Sahoo, At/Po/Ps: Solada, Talcher, Dist : Angul-759103 Pan No. : Cmvps 3481 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Himanshu Jena & Narahari Swain, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Nishanth Rao, B, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, Himanshu Jena &For Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao, B, Sr.DR

appeal of the assessee is barred by 63 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with affidavit stating sufficient reasons for delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Accordingly, delay of 63 days in filing the present appeal

The Aska Co Operative Sugar Industries Limited, Aska vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Incoem Tax DCIT Asmnt, Berhampur

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

ITA 253/CTK/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.253/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) The Aska Cooperative Sugar Vs Dcit, Assessment Berhampur Industries Limited, Naugam, Aska-761111 Pan No. :Aaaat 5989 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sujit Kumar Acharya & Shradhanjali Das, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Sujit Kumar Acharya & ShradhanjaliFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

appeal of the assessee is barred by 389 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons for delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld. CIT-DR also did not raise any serious ... objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, delay of 389 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 2 3. It was submitted by the ld AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing

M T C B I P I H Technlogy, Baripada vs. ITO, Exemption, Cuttack

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

ITA 171/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.171/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020) Mtcbipih Technology Vs Ito(Exemptions), Cuttack Dhobadiha Chowk, Khairi, Joshipur Mayurbhanj-757034 Pan No. :Aabam 4772 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Jena & Chitta Ranjan Sahoo, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Nishanth Rao, B, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Jena & Chitta Ranjan SahooFor Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao, B, Sr.DR

appeal of the assessee is barred by 35 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit 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 35 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 2 3. It was submitted by the ld AR that due to miscommunication the appeal could not be filed in time, therefore, the delay

Durga Dutta Subudhi, Puri vs. ITO, Ward Puri

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 552/CTK/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.552/Ctk/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Durga Dutta Subudhi Vs Ito, Ward Puri. Badasankha, Grand Road, Puri Pan No. :Acxps 7943 P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Nishanth Rao, B Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao, B Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 194

appeal of the assessee is barred by 24 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with affidavit stating therein the sufficient reasons which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection. Accordingly

Mogar Partapore Vibhag Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd, Na vs. Arivs.DCIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari

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

ITA 91/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 8O

assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A), dismissing the appeal of the assessee refusing to condone the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. We note that for other years as well, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account ... similar for all the years before us. 5. Before us, the assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) refusing to condone the delay in filing of appeal. ITA Nos.86to89/Srt/2025 & 91/Srt/2025 Navgam Vibhag Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO & Mogar Partapore Vibhag Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst

Navagam Vibhag Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-3, Navsari

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

ITA 89/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 8O

assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A), dismissing the appeal of the assessee refusing to condone the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. We note that for other years as well, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account ... similar for all the years before us. 5. Before us, the assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) refusing to condone the delay in filing of appeal. ITA Nos.86to89/Srt/2025 & 91/Srt/2025 Navgam Vibhag Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO & Mogar Partapore Vibhag Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst

Navagam Vibhag Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Navsari

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

ITA 88/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 8O

assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A), dismissing the appeal of the assessee refusing to condone the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. We note that for other years as well, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account ... similar for all the years before us. 5. Before us, the assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) refusing to condone the delay in filing of appeal. ITA Nos.86to89/Srt/2025 & 91/Srt/2025 Navgam Vibhag Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO & Mogar Partapore Vibhag Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst

Navagam Vibhag Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward 3, Navsari

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

ITA 87/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 8O

assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A), dismissing the appeal of the assessee refusing to condone the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. We note that for other years as well, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account ... similar for all the years before us. 5. Before us, the assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) refusing to condone the delay in filing of appeal. ITA Nos.86to89/Srt/2025 & 91/Srt/2025 Navgam Vibhag Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO & Mogar Partapore Vibhag Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst

Navagam Vibhag Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward 3, Navsari

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

ITA 86/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 8O

assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A), dismissing the appeal of the assessee refusing to condone the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. We note that for other years as well, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account ... similar for all the years before us. 5. Before us, the assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) refusing to condone the delay in filing of appeal. ITA Nos.86to89/Srt/2025 & 91/Srt/2025 Navgam Vibhag Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO & Mogar Partapore Vibhag Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst

Ghanshyam Manubhai Radadiya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 247/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Assessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69

appeal of the assessee. 5. The ld. A.R. submitted that there is a delay of 302 days for which the assessee has filed condonation of delay application wherein the assessee has stated the reason due to incorrect email id shown by the assessee, the assessee could not receive the order

Nadathara Grama Vikasana Society Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed and the stay applications are dismissed

ITA 426/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Biju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 282(1)

that there is a delay of 25 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the delay had occurred as the appellant was engaged in critical year end closing activities ... appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication. Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay, in the absence of any evidence contrary, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant society is prevented by sufficient reasonable cause in filing

Nadathara Grama Vikasana Co-Operative Society Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed and the stay applications are dismissed

ITA 425/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Biju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 282(1)

that there is a delay of 25 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the delay had occurred as the appellant was engaged in critical year end closing activities ... appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication. Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay, in the absence of any evidence contrary, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant society is prevented by sufficient reasonable cause in filing

The Kangazha Service Co Operative Bank Limited, Kangazha vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2 Thiruvalla, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 414/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kangazha Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kangazha P.O., Kottayam 686541 [Pan: Aadat7325H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 03.10.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Return Of 2 Kangazha Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income For Ay 2018-19 Was Filed On 26.09.2018 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Of Rs. 1,49,79,478/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ito, Ward-2, Thiruvalla (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 23.03.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 1,49,70,478/-. While Doing So, The Ao Denied Deduction U/S. 80P By Holding That The Appellant Society Is Engaged In Activities Other Than The Activities For Which It Was Formed.

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250(6)Section 80P

outset, we find that the present appeal is filed with a delay of 540 days. The appellant society had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay stating that the order passed by the CIT(A) was unnoticed as it was not served through physical mode and it came to know ... Thus he submitted that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay, in the absence of any evidence contrary, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant society is prevented by sufficient reasonable cause

Ayyanthole Panchayath Service Cooperative Bank Limited 471, Kariyattukara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 361/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ayyanthole Panchayath Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd........... Appellant Kariyattukara P.O., Thrissur 680611 [Pan: Aacaa3641G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Alan P. Dev, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 22.12.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Return Of 2 Ayyanthole Panchayath Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income Was Filed 30.03.2018 Declaring Total Income At Rs. 1,79,87,945/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ito, Ward-2(1), Thrissur Vide Order Dated 23.12.2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At A Total Income Of Rs. 1,79,39,378/- By Disallowing The Claim For Deduction U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Alan P. Dev, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

present appeal. 5. At the outset, there is a delay of 448 days in filing the appeal. The appellant filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant did not receive the order passed u/s. 250 of the Act. It became aware of the order only ... material contrary to the averments made in the affidavit, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3 Ayyanthole Panchayath Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused