“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

R.R. Developers, Paaschim Bardhaman vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Durgapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1344/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1344/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Rr Developers Vs The Income Tax Officer, Kajora More Ward 1(1), Durgapur-713216, P.O. Kajora, Dist.Paaschim West Bengal Bardhaman, Pin-713338, West Bengal Pan No. :Aatfr 5876 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv. : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By 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 13.12.2023, 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 128 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. Ld.Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection. Accordingly, The Delay Of 128 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Notice Issued U/S.148 Of The Act On 09.07.2018 Was Unsigned. The Said Notice Reads As Follows :-

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv

Section 148

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 128 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. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection. Accordingly

Institute of Nephrourology, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions Circle - 01, Unity Building Annexe

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and restored to the file of the ld

ITA 337/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Shreesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred by not condoning the delay in filing of appeal of the Appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by not adjudicating ... justice and equity.” ITA Nos.336 & 337/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 15 4. As the appeals has been decided by the CIT(A) by not condoning the delay, therefore we are mandated to look into whether there was sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeals by the assessee before

Institute of Nephrourology, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle 1, Unity Building

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and restored to the file of the ld

ITA 336/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Shreesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

Abhishek Wahee, Mumbai vs. ITO Pne Ward 58(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1273/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainabhishek Wahee Vs. Ito Pne Ward 58(1) 901, 9Th Floor, Mahesh Towers, Gilbert Hall, Mumbai – 400053. Pan/Gir No. Aawpw0511E (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

dismissed the appeal as the same was filed beyond the period of 2 Abhishek Wahee limitation and consequently while dismissing the application for condonation of delay, the appeal was dismissed. 3. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record and the orders passed ... revenue authorities. 4. From the records, we noticed that assessee has filed a detailed explanation thereby explaining the reason for seeking condonation of delay. The assessee has mentioned reasons for non compliance before the CIT(A) in affidavit as under: I, Abhishek Wahee, residing at 901, 9Th Floor, Mahesh Tower

Anjali Malik, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Rohtak

In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 132 days in filing the appeal and appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1504/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Anjali Malik, Vs. Ito, Ward 3, 190, Delhi Road, Rohtak. Civil Lines, Rohtak (Haryana) Pan No. Abopm2126J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Date of Hearing: 25.06.2025 Date of pronouncement: 25.06.2025 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The application for condonation of delay of 132 days in filing appeal and appeal of assessee are against order dated 16.08.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC ... appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 16.08.2024. 4. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred application for condonation of delay of 132 days in filing appeal and present appeal. 2 5. Learned Authorised Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that there is delay of 132 days

Jug Vir Singh, Bulandshahr vs. ITO, Ward -3(1), Bulandshahr

In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 395 days in filing appeal and appeal of appellant/assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1406/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Jug Vir Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 3(1), Vill. & Post: Nimchana, Bulandshahr Madhaiy, Thana Agota, Bulandshahr Pan No. Doups8660P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 30

Date of Hearing: 25.06.2025 Date of pronouncement: 25.06.2025 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The application for condonation of delay of 395 days in filing appeal and appeal of assessee are against order dated 08.12.2023 of Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC ... Against the order dated 21.12.2018, appellant/assessee preferred appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 08.12.2023. 4. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred application for condonation of delay of 395 days in filing appeal and present appeal. 5. Learned Authorised Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that appellant/assessee is not versed with Income

Mrs. Sunita Vijay, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-44(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1403/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Mrs.Sunita Vijay, Vs. Ito, Ward-44(1), B-62, 2Nd Floor, Sector-8, Delhi Dwarka, Delhi Pin: 1100 75 Pan No. Agepv2684H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, CIT (DR)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

Date of Hearing: 25.06.2025 Date of pronouncement: 25.06.2025 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The Application for condonation of delay of 7 days and appeal are against order dated 11.12.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred ... filing appeal and appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which were dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2024. 4. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred application for condonation of delay of 7 days in filing present appeal. 5. Appellant/assessee in affidavit submitted that she is aged about 37 years. She was running proprietorship business

Yogesh Kumar Verma, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur

ITA 305/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 305/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 50C(2)

been delayed by 339 days. The assessee was informed through a defect memo to remove this defect. In compliance, an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the Counsel of the assessee along with affidavit signed by the assessee and another affidavit signed by the regular counsel ... Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur, SLP (Civil) Nos. 268310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025, wherein it is held that while dealing with the condonation of delay 5 Yogesh Kumar Verma vs. ITO-4(5), Raipur a justice-oriented and liberal approach ought to have adopted. Respectfully following the analogy drawn

I M C of P C I T I (Women), Baripada vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Baripada

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

ITA 247/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarita No.244 To 247/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2017-18 I M C O F P C I T I (Women) Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Baripada Baripada, Mayurbhanj, 757001 Pan/Gir No. Aaaat 3691 J (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02 /07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 23/08/2024 In Appeal Nos.Nfac/2012-13/10166277, Nafc/2013-14/10166580, Nfac/2105- 16/10166581, Nfac/2016-17/10166582 Passed For Assessment Years 2013- 14, 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek kr Mishra, Sr. DR

condonation petitions, we are satisfied that the assessee had sufficient cause for not filing the appeals within the stipulated period. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 174 days in all the appeals and admit for hearing. 4. At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee submitted that ... before the ld CIT(A), which are extracted at page 4 of the order, as under: 5. The ld CIT(A) did not condone the delay finding the reasons not plausible and accordingly, dismissed the appeals as not maintainable. It was submitted by ld AR the delay in filing

I M C of P C I T I (Women), Baripada vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Baripada

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

ITA 246/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek kr Mishra, Sr. DR

I M C of P C I T I (Women), Baripada vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Baripada

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

ITA 245/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek kr Mishra, Sr. DR

I M C of P C I T I (Women), Baripada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Baripada

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

ITA 244/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek kr Mishra, Sr. DR

Tapan Kumar Sethy, Cuttack vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Cuttack

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

ITA 227/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Tapan Kumar Sethy Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Purighat Road, Telenga Bazar , Cuttack Cuttack- 753009 Pan/Gir No. Blzps 1048 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhanshu Kr Das, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02 /07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 15/06/2022 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Cuttack/10917/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 952 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Dated 7.4.2025 Supported With Affidavit Stating The Reasons That Due To Serious Illness Of The Assessee’S Mother & Change Of P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhanshu Kr Das, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 253(3)

DCIT reported in [2023] 156 taxmann.com 361 (Madras) wherein it is held that where assessee had not given 'sufficient cause' for condoning huge delay in filing appeal, therefore, the delay could not be condoned. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and also the condonation petition filed by the assessee ... assessee satisfied the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period. The Tribunal has power to condone the delay only when sufficient cause is shown with a view to advance substantial justice and even after sufficient cause has been shown the party

Hindusthan Ore and Mining Private Limited, Barbil vs. ITO, Rourkela, Ayakar Bhawan, Udit Nagar Rourkela

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

ITA 210/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Hindustan Ore & Mining Private Vs. Ito, Rourkela, Ayakar Bhawan, Limited Udit Nagar, Rourkela Opposite East India Crusher Near Gurunanak Petroleum, Barbil, Keonnjhar- 758035 Pan/Gir No. Aacch 7805 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chittaranjan Panda, Ca Revenue By : Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 2 /7/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 2 /7/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 07/06/2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10129894 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Vide Adjournment Petition Dated July 01, 2025, Ld Ar Had Sought Adjournment, Which Is Rejected & The Appeal Is Disposed On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Chittaranjan Panda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 156Section 271(1)(c)

assessment is void ab initio. It is submitted that the assessee is not in any way trying to gain any advantage of this condonation of delay and the delay in filing of the appeal was not intentional. It was prayed that the delay of 232 days in filing the appeal ... complication of the income tax proceedings. Thereafter, he filed the appeal. The delay in filing of appeal was actually not intentional. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. P a g e 2 | 4 Assessment Year : 2015-16 6. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel

Biswajit Roy, Jalpaiguri vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jalpaiguri

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 866/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Him, In Limine, By Not Condoning A Delay Of 436 Days Before Him.

Section 115BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

recapitulated for appreciating the action of Ld. CIT(A), who is seen to have dismissed the appeal before him, in limine, by not condoning a delay of 436 days before him. 1.2 Vide his order dated 30.08.2021, the Ld.AO has made an addition ... Response Letter 02/01/2021 02/01/2021 e-mail 2. Thereafter, the assessee approached the CIT(A) requesting for relief from the enhancement to income, after condonation of delay of 436 days. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has analysed the assessee’s request for condonation of delay factually and has come

Rajinder Kumar Modi, HUF, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward - 47(5), Kolkata

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

ITA 521/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.521/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Rajinder Kumar Modi Huf Vs Ito, Ward-47(5), Kolkata C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Pan No. :Aajhr 2810 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/07/2025 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 26.10.2023, Passed For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri Siddharth Agrawal, 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 437 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Application Supported With An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons Which Are Not Found To Be False, Therefore, The Delay Of 437 Days In Filing The Appeal Stands Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. It Was The Submission Of The Ld. Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Without Affording Sufficient Opportunity Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. It Was Also Submitted That The Assessee May Be Given One More Opportunity

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate

appeal of the assessee is barred by 437 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed application supported with an affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons which are not found to be false, therefore, the delay of 437 days in filing the appeal stands condoned

Gaffar Ali Molla, Sandeshkhali vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 49 (1), Kolkata

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

ITA 356/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

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

appeal of the assessee is barred by 384 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed application supported with an affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons which are not found to be false, therefore, the delay of 384 days in filing the appeal stands condoned

D Rajeswari, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Erode

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

ITA 1020/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1020/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 D. Rajeswari, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 22F, Periyar Nagar, Opp To Ward 1 (1) Kumarasamy Hospital, Erode. Erode 638 001. [Pan:Apkpr2076J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Meenatchi Sundaram, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 40 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri K. Meenatchi Sundaram, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

year 2019-20. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 40 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee

Manasa Education Trust (R), Mandya vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Mandya

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 372/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT

Section 144Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

been filed with a delay of 178 days. The assessee has submitted an affidavit dated 25-04-2025 along with a petition for condonation of delay. As per the affidavit, the assessee is an educational institution managed by a trust. The principal who was appointed on 20- 06-2022, states

Micron Materials, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2357/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh & Shri Akshay Pawar , A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. D/R

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal supported by an affidavit. We have carefully considered the contents of the application for condonation of delay along with affidavit and are of the considered I.T.A. No. 2357/Mum/2025 2 view that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause