“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

Nithayanantham Baskaran, Chennai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 3199/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. T.R.Sarathy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 144

brought to our notice that the instant appeal has been filed belatedly with a delay of ‘259’ days and has filed application for condonation of delay and affidavit supporting the Nithayanantham Baskaran :: 2 :: averments made therein explaining the cause of delay. Having gone through the contents of the application ... condonation of delay, the affidavit as well as medical records supporting the averments made therein, we condone the delay and proceed to examine the appeal on its own merits. 3. The Ld.AR brought to our notice that the AO passed an ex parte order because the notices issued

Proplarity Infratech Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 5(2)(4), G Budh Nagar

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

ITA 4089/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 148Section 250

against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Because, Id. CIT (Appeals) inherently wrong in dismissing the appeal by denying to condone the delay against the specific direction 1 Proplarity infratech Pvt. Ltd. of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, whereby reason for delay of 69 days being on account ... same as barred by limitation as the Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the appellant-assessee for condonation of delay. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order dated 25.05.2023, the appellant assessee filed writ petition before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, which was decided vide

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 6, New Delhi vs. Nec Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7392/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

copy of the order was communicated on 23-12-2014. 9. At the threshold of this appeal, the appellant submitted application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal on Page 7 of 24 ITA No.- 7392/Del/2017 M/s NEC Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. 08-12-2017 alongwith affidavit of Additional ... cause with the appellant for not filing the appeal within the prescribed limit as lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a relevant and significant fact. 14. It is stated by the appellant in the aforesaid application dated 08-12-2017 that

Devendra Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward Dausa, Dausa

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

ITA 660/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: This Tribunal. Application For Condonation

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 147Section 250(6)

dependent upon his tax consultant and was unaware about the impugned ex-parte order of ld. CIT(A). Ld. DR opposed the condonation of delay, I have carefully gone through the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed for condonation of delay and observe that there is a reasonable cause which ... Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382. I hereby condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. With the assistance of the both sides, I have gone throw the records carefully. The impugned order is ex-parte

Dargah Hazrat Meeran Sahib, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Ajmer

ITA 431/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kulhari, Addl. CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

period of limitation. 6. Today, Learned AR for the applicant has submitted fresh three separate applications, one in respect of each appeal, seeking condonation of delay, supported by fresh affidavits of the Secretary of the applicant. 7. While referring to the reasons given in the applications ... applicant is a “Dargah” and its Secretary- authorized representative did not diligently pursue the matters, we deem it a fit case to condone the delay in filing of the appeals. It is ordered accordingly. On merits 11. On going through the record, it transpires that the assessee remained non compliant

Sarafat Ali Khan, Sikar, Rajasthan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 1199/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)

Jaipur. 2. The registry has informed that there is a delay of 2 days in filing the present appeal. Applications for condonation of delay has 2 Sarafat Lal Khan vs. ITO been filed along with an affidavit mentioning the reasonable cause giving rise to the said delay. After hearing ... affidavit filed for condoning delay I find that for bona fide reasons, the assessee could not file appeal in time and therefore, condone the delay in filing of instant the appeal and admit it for adjudication. 3. When the case called for none appeared on behalf of the assessee

Shafi Ahamed, Kanpur vs. ACIT, CC-1, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 231/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2021-22 Shafi Ahamed V. The Acit 133/194 ‘O’ Block Central Circle 1 Sabzi Mandi Kanpur Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Alhpa0988P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R

Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)

there is a delay of 445 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application dated Nil for condonation of delay duly supported by an Affidavit, which was received by the Registry of this Office on 07.04.2025, stating therein that the impugned order ... delay being condoned. 4.2 In view of the prayer made by the Assessee and no objection by the Ld. Sr. D.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. ITA No.231/LKW/2025 Page 6 of 7 5.0 Since the order passed

Udaan Sewa Samiti, Kanpur Nagar vs. CPC Banglore, Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 150/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Udaan Seva Samiti V. The Cpc 250/4, Juhi Lal Colony Bangalore Kanpur Nagar Uttar Pradesh Tan/Pan:Aaaau7543F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.11.2023, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Mumbai For Assessment Year 2019-20. 3.1 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Society Registered Under Section 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). The Assessee-Society Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Under Section 139(1) On 26.01.2021, Declaring Total Income At Nil. The Assessee-Society Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.12,97,442/- Relating To The Amount Applied For Charitable & Religious Purposes During The Previous Year. The Central Processing Centre (Cpc) Processed The Return Under Section 143(1) Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated Nil for condonation of delay, duly supported by Medical Certificate, Prescription and ITA No.150/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 9 Discharge Summary sheet, stating therein that the Member of the Samiti, Smt Deepika ... view of the prayer made by the Assessee, duly supported by an Affidavit and no objection by the Ld. Sr. D.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 6.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that the assessee

Hakam Singh, Sangrur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Sangrur, Sangrur

ITA 1130/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1130/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Hakam Singh, The Ito, बनाम C/O Tej Mohan Singh, Ward - Sangrur Advocate, Vs. #527, Sector 10D,Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Bdwps5185E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03 07.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151

Appeals) has failed to appreciate that while filing the appeal in Form Number 35, it was specifically mentioned that the grounds of condonation of delay are attached and a prayer was made to condone the delay which has not been considered and as such the order passed arbitrary and unjustified ... Delhi. In filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A), there was a delay of 212 days for which the Assessee filed a condonation of delay letter requesting the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay. The Assessee also filed written submissions on merit before

Shri Ram Bhakt Mandal Trust, Sabarkantha vs. The CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 1072/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Chintan Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80G

being disposed of by way of a common order. 2. At the outset, we note that the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay of 165 days in filing of the present appeals against the order of rejection passed by Ld. CIT(E) rejecting grant of approval under Section

Shri Ram Bhakt Mandal Trust, Sabarkantha vs. The CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 1071/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Chintan Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80G

Venugopal Reddy Gelivi, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

ITA 393/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद 'ए' बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A‘Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ

Sri Venakteswara Swamy Devastanam, Jamalapuram vs. ITO., Exemption Ward1- (3), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1003/HYD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1002 & 1003/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17) Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vs. Income Tax Officer Devasthanam (Exemption), Ward 1(3) Jamalapuram Hyderabad Pan:Aamts2301Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate E Hari Babu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders, Both Dated 19/02/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 160 Days In Filing The Present Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay. The Learned Ar Of The Assessee Has Submitted That During The Pendency Of The Appeal Before The Learned Cit (A), The Assessee Filed A Writ Petition Before The Hon'Ble High Court For Issuing Directions To The Learned Cit (A) & The Hon'Ble High Court Was Pleased To Give Directions To The Learned Cit (A)

For Appellant: Advocate E Hari BabuFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 11

There is a delay of 160 days in filing the present appeals. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that during the pendency of the appeal before the learned CIT (A), the assessee filed a writ petition before ... appeal of the assessee be admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has objected to the condonation of delay in filing the present appeals. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as carefully perused the contents of the application for condonation

Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devastanam, Jamalapuram vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1002/HYD/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

For Appellant: Advocate E Hari BabuFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 11

Chinki Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 952/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Miraz D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 397 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for delay which are not found false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection. Accordingly

Pakezah Fish Co, Howrah vs. Addl / JCIT (Appeals)-7, Mumbai Present Jao, Income Tax Officer, Ward-47(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 327/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanpakeezah Fish Co. Vs Ito Ward-47(2), Kolkata Stall No.44, Hit Fish Market Howrah Pan No. :Aahfp 0183 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Miraz D. Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Miraz D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

appeal of the assessee is time barred by 170 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed affidavit in support of the condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons which are not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection. Accordingly, delay of 170 days

Jaynta Kumar Maitra, Sarengabad Budge Budge vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolkata

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

ITA 257/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Arka Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 01 day. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for delay which are not found false. Accordingly, the delay of 01 days in filing the appeal

Hiranmoy Bhattacherjee, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 52(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2598/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2598/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Hiranmoy Bhattacherjee Vs Ito, Ward 52(2), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Income Tax Office, 169, Ajc, Bose Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Road, Bamboo Villa, Central Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Revenue Building, Second Floor, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700014, West Bengal Pan No. :Acypb 5405 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025 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 26.01.2024, Passed For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 263 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Delay Which Are Not Found False. Ld.Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection. Accordingly, The Delay Of 263 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 263 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for delay which are not found false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection. Accordingly

DCIT, Central Circle, 1-(4), Kolkata vs. Kkalpana Industries India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2589/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2589/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 4Th Floor, Room No.3, New Kolkata B.K.Market, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Pandey, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 10.07.2024 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. Shri Pankaj Pandey, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Barred By 79 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Accordingly, Delay Of 79 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Dr That The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Originally Processed U/S.143(1) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Assessment Was Reopened By Issuing Of Notice U/S.148 Of The Act Dated

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

assessee. 3. The appeal of the revenue is barred by 79 days. In this regard, the revenue has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons which are plausible and not found to be false. Accordingly, delay of 79 days in filing the appeal is condoned

Sampat Mal Parakh, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2238/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2238/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Sampat Mal Parakh 16 Bonfield Lane, Room No.85, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal Vs Ito, Ward-6(3), Kolkata Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Pan No. :Affpp 2940 A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Ruchi Agrawal, Ar : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr : 03/07/2025 : 03/07/2025 (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आदेश / Order This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Id. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 31.05.2023, Passed For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. An Adjournment Application Has Been Filed Wherein One Ms. Ruchi Agarwal, Appeared, Who Is Ca & She Was Not In Uniform. Consequently, The Adjournment Application Is Rejected & The Appeal Is Disposed Off. 3. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 465 Days For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating As Under :- “08 November, 2024 The Hon'Ble Members, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 225С. А. Ј. С Bose Road Kolkata-700020 P. A. N. Affpp 2940A Dear Sir. Re: Sampat Mal Parakh

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

disposed off. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 465 days for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating as under :- “08 November, 2024 The Hon'ble Members, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 225С. А. Ј. С Bose Road Kolkata ... AFFPP 2940A Dear Sir. Re: Sampat Mal Parakh Assessment Year 2010-11 2 ITA No.2238/KOL/2024 Petition for Condonation of Delay in filing appeal against order of CIT (Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi dated 31-05-2023 1.0 This is to bring to your notice that order u/s 250 dated