← 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

Kishore Chakraborty, Malda vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Malda

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

ITA 670/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Smt. Pampa Ray, JCIT-Sr.DR

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 336 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. CIT-DR also did not raise any serious objection ... condone the delay. Accordingly, delay of 336 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Sarika Jhawar, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 47(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 662/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Smt. Pampa Ray, JCIT-Sr.DR

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 28 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 28 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. It was the submission by the ld. AR that the assessee is a widow and her husband was looking after the affairs. The assessee

Majahelp Network Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 656/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Smt. Pampa Ray, JCIT-Sr.DR

revenue. 3. It was submitted by the ld.AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. It was the submission that the assessment order was served on the assessee on 02.08.2021 and the appeal has been filed ... received the notices but just not to respond. This also further shows that the assessee has not taken any action for the condonation of delay much less brought the delay to the attention of the ld. CIT(A). This being so, I find no reason to interfere in the order

Ashirbad Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 655/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Smt. Pampa Ray, JCIT-Sr.DR

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 209 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld. CIT-DR also ... raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, delay of 209 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

Chennai Om Shree Skandasramam Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 987/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:987/Chny/2025 Chennai Om Shree Cit (Exemptions), Skandasramam Charitable Trust, Vs. Chennai. 1, Kambar Street, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Rajakilpakkam, Chennai – 600 073. [Pan:Aaatc-4306-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit (Virtual)

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT (Virtual)
Section 12ASection 80G(5)(vi)

find that there is a delay of 1,404 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which Affidavit and petition for condonation of delay along with reasons for delay has been filed. The ld.AR for the assessee in the condonation petition has stated that the communication of the order ... assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone the delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is a charitable

Mahasakthi Bio Enercon Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 467/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:467/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mahasakthi Bio Enercon Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Vs. Income Tax, No.64, Dr. Nanjappa Road, Central Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 018. Coimbatore. [Pan:Aabci-0022-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

outset, we find that the appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 259 days, for which, a petition for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal along with Affidavit explaining the reasons for delay, has been filed by the assessee. The Ld.AR for the assessee referring

Income Tax Officer, Wanaparthy Block vs. Tamilnadu Special Police Employees Cooperative, Tsp Camp

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 363/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:363/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Income Tax Officer, Tamilnadu Special Police Non-Corporate Ward -7(3), Vs. Employees Cooperative, Chennai – 600 034. Avadi, Chennai – 600 054. [Pan:Aafat-0366-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Dated 11.10.2024. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 34 Days In Appeal Filed By The Revenue, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Reasons For Delay Has Been Filed. After Considering The Petition Filed By The Revenue & Also Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That There Is A Reasonable Cause For The Revenue In Not Filing Appeal On Or Before The Due Date Prescribed Under The Law & Thus

For Appellant: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, C.A
Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

outset, we find that there is a delay of 34 days in appeal filed by the revenue, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons for delay has been filed. After considering the petition filed by the revenue and also hearing both the parties, we find that there

Ramasamy Palanivel, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 1076/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.T. S. Lakshmi –For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 144

explaining the cause Ramasamy Palnivel :: 2 :: for the delay. From a perusal of the contents of the affidavit and the application filed for condonation of delay, we find that there is reasonable cause for the delay and therefore, we condone the delay of ‘17’ days in filing of the appeal ... were issued to him; and also failed to furnish any reason for belated filing of appeal by ‘92’ days. Hence, he refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We don’t countenance the action of the Ld.CIT(A); and the assessee is noted to have

Institute Voluntas Dei, Madurai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 1002/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1002/Chny/2025 Institute Voluntas Dei, Cit (Exemptions), 2/462, Ivd Seminary, Lkb Nagar, Vs. Chennai. Sakkimangalam, Elamanur Post, Madurai – 625 201. [Pan:Aabai-5537-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

delay of 616 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which the assessee has filed an affidavit along with petition for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal stating the reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted that the assessee could not respond to :-2-: ITA. No:1002/Chny/2025

Suntec Business Solutions Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3252/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

advised to file an appeal as against the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, a liberal approach may be taken for condonation of delay since assessee’s application for rectification of the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act has been filed within time and same

Jurimatrix Services India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 92/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri K.R. Girish, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 144Section 156Section 234ASection 234BSection 263Section 270A

East, 4th T Block East, Tilak Nagar, Jayanagar Bengaluru-560041 PAN: AABCJ6157D Dear Sir/Madam, Re: Jurimatrix Services India Private Limited - Revised application for condonation of delay - Assessment Year 2018-19 (ITA 92/BANG/2025). We refer to our appeal hearing before Hon'ble Tribunal, Bench -A on 05 March 2025. During ... course of appeal hearing, Hon'ble Tribunal has directed to file a revised application for condonation of delay. In view of this, we have enclosed herewith copies of revised application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit for condonation of delay as Annexure 1. We request you to kindly

M/S Hussain Multispeciality Hospital, Bijapur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vijayapur

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

ITA 2387/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 250Section 40

assessee also drew our attention to an affidavit dated 21.1.2025 sworn before the notary public along with the application for the condonation of delay which are reproduced below for ease of reference and record: INDIA NON JUDICIAL Government of Karnataka e-Stamp Certificate No. Certificate Issued Date Account Reference Unique ... delay and requested to consider the issues raised by the assessee on merits. 5. On the contrary the ld. D.R. although objected for condoning the delay but could not controvert the submission as made by the assessee. 6. We have perused the details filed by the assessee to justify

Rita Naginbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31(1)(7), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal

ITA 2168/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) Rita Naginbhai Patel Ito, Ward-31(1)(7), Room No 534, 5Th Floor, 1004, Galaxy Royale, Yashvant Nagar, Rd No. Vs 1 Prem Nagar, Goregaon West, Motilal Oswal Kautilyabhavan, Bkc Nagar, S.O.Mumbai – 400104. Complex, Bandra (East), [Pan: Ahfpp6065N] Mumbai-400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

assessment year (AY) 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: ”1. The CIT(Appeal) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal without appreciating the effect of appellant. 2. The CIT(Appeal) has erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the material available ... filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). There was slight delay of 78 days in filing appeal. The ld. CIT(A) not condoned the delay in filing appeal. During the period, when appeal was filed before ld. CIT(A), the 2 Rita Naginbhai Patel assessee was passing through crucial face

Umaravati, Ghazipur vs. ITO Ambikapur, Ambikapur

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

ITA 393/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.393/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Umrawati, W/O Lt. Harishankar, Village & Post Goshalpur, Distt. Ghazipur, Village & Post Goshalpur, 233228, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Agdpu2867Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250

written submission on 06/05/2024 as under: To Honorable Commissioner of Income tax (appeal) Income tax Department NEAC Delhi Sir, Sub: Application for condonation of delay for appeal filed beyond time limit Petition Regarding. PAN: AGDPU2867Q Honourable Sir, I have not received the copy of assessment order and notice of demand ... enquiry regarding the genuineness of the claim made by the assessee and instead in summary manner had dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of the assessee. That Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025

Malani Holdings Private Limited, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Raipur

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 316/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 316/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen GoyalFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

order passed in the case and instantly took the remedial action. Accordingly, the instant appeal has been prepared along with the application for condonation of delay, which may please be considered and allowed. The assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 1,20,00, 000/- to the total income

SHI vs. Ahyadri Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha, Sangamner, Ahmed Nagarvs.Exemption Ward 1(1), Nsk, Nashik

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

ITA 1461/PUN/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1461/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2025-2026 Vs Exemption Ward 1(1), Shivsahyadri Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi Nashik Sanstha, 1, Nimgaon Paga Tal Sangamner, Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar-422002 Maharashtra Pan-Aasts5988D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra NivruttiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde-CIT
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 10.03.2025. 2. There is a delay of 26 days in filing of this appeal. Application for condonation of delay stands filed. Considering the reasonable cause, delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2 3. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal

Gangagiri Maharaj Betsarala Mahila Nagari Patsanstha Ltd, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1418/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 144Section 250Section 5Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Registry has informed that there is delay of 455 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed application for condonation of delay stating that assessee relied on the advice of Chartered Accountant who stated that the appeal before Tribunal could be filed only after receiving the Revised ... tendered by a professional and the litigant acting upon it one way or the other could be a sufficient cause to 4 seek condonation of delay and holding so, a huge delay of 2984 days was condoned by Hon'ble High Court. 5. Reliance is also placed on the decision

Mohan Haribhau Khedkar, Pune vs. I.T.O Ward-4(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1299/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Rohit S. TapadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 5

Registry has informed that the appeal before this Tribunal is time barred by 20 days. Assessee has filed application for condonation of delay stating as under : “Hon Sir, The Order was received by me on 4th February 2025 and an appeal was required to be filed by 30th April ... notice u/s 148, the appeal filing got delayed.” 6. Accordingly, the appeal has been filed before your honour with an prayer to condone the delay.” 3 Mohan Haribhau Khedkar 5. I have heard the rival submissions and gone through the averments made in the condonation application. Hon’ble courts

M/S Jyoti Solutionworks Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 2317/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2317/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5

Registry has informed that there is delay of 480 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed application for condonation of delay stating the reason that “due to merger of the transferor company with the appellant, updates on e-filing portal were glossed over and remained unattended ... technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits by adopting a liberal approach towards ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the delay. The Court considering an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal

Mseb Employee Co Operative Credit Society Ltd Jalna, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 1 Jalna, Jalna

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

ITA 1685/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1685/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Girish LaddaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80P

Meghani vs. DCIT, 389 ITR 250 (Bom.) wherein delay of 2984 days was condoned. Hon’ble Court held that in the matter of condonation of delay an overall view in the larger interest of justice has to be taken. None should be deprived of adjudication on merits unless the Court ... intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bonafides. Considering the given facts, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A) and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. In the light of above and in the larger interest