← 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

Sangeeta Singh, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-5(3)(3), Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida

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

ITA 1388/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed application for condonation of delay of 246 days due to non-service of notice and order of Ld. AO sent on wrong addressed and not on PAN and ITR address ... dismissed application for condonation of delay and appeal. The explanation of appellant/assessee does not smack of mala fide as appellant had not gained anything by not appearing during assessment proceeding and filing appeal within limitation. Therefore, the delay of 246 days in filing the appeal deserved to be condoned

Naveen Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-34(1), Delhi

In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 32 days in filing appeal and appeal of appellant/assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1364/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2022-23 Naveen Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward 34(1), Hd-56, M/S.Shree Bankey Delhi Bihari Pulses Pulses Mills, 2Nd Floor, Pitampura, New Delhi Pin: 1100 34 Pan No. Agdpk1562G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Manshi Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)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 32 days and appeal are against order dated 21.11.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income- Tax/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi under Section ... Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred present application and appeal. 6. Learned Authorised Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal on account of mishandling of proceedings by a distant relative CA Shri Aman Goel, who was hired for issuance

Nasalapur Mahila Pattina Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Raibag vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4, Belagavi

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

ITA 185/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.185/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Nasalapur Mahila Pattin Vs I.T.O Ward-4, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Civil Hospital Road, . Nasalapur, Belgaum-590001. Chikodi, Karnataka. Belgaum-591213, . Karnataka. Pan .No. Aacan5745N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Chetan Chougle.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr

Section 68

delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the application for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay 2 ITA. No.185/PAN/2024 Nasalapur Mahila Pattin Sahakari

Jince Kurian, Sambalpur vs. The Income Tax Officer ITO, Ward 2(1), Sambalpur

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

ITA 98/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jince Kurian Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Sambalpur Bishop House, C/O Associate Infra Developers Private Limited Ainthhapali, 768004 Pan/Gir No. Bvppk 7918 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K Miishra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01 /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 21/06/2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Sambalpur/10137/2018-19 Passed For Assessment Year 2016-17, Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri P.K Miishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 69A

bonafide and there is no evil intention of the assessee. It was prayed that the delay be condoned. Ld Sr DR opposed the condonation of delay. 3. After hearing the parties and perusing the condonation petition, we are satisfied that the assessee had sufficient cause in not filing the appeal ... within time and, therefore, we condone the delay of 162 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the ld CIT(A), NFAC has given four opportunities

Sahoo Distributeers Private Limited, Jajpur vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Cuttack

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

ITA 63/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 270

there was delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A) and the ld CIT(A) has not considered the request for condoning the delay and confirmed the penalty order so passed by the Assessing Officer. Ld A.R. submitted that similar issue had been considered by this Tribunal ... case but the assessee failed to comply the same. It was the submission that the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the grounds of condonation of delay taken by the appellant after giving the thoughtful consideration to the same and has rightly rejected the penalty appeal on the grounds of delay

Jince Kurian, Sambalpur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1) Sambalpur, Sambalpur

In the result, appeals stand partly allowed for statistical

ITA 130/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 69A

bonafide and there is no evil intention of the assessee. It was prayed that the delay be condoned. Ld Sr DR opposed the condonation of delay. 3. After hearing the parties and perusing the condonation petition, we are satisfied that the assessee had sufficient cause in not filing the appeal ... within time and, therefore, we condone the delay of 162 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the Id CIT(A), NFAC has given four opportunities

Jince Kurian, Sambalpur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Sambalpur

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

ITA 129/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jince Kurian Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Sambalpur Bishop House, C/O Associate Infra Developers Private Limited Ainthhapali, 768004 Pan/Gir No. Bvppk 7918 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K Miishra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01 /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 21/06/2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Sambalpur/10137/2018-19 Passed For Assessment Year 2016-17, Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri P.K Miishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 69A

bonafide and there is no evil intention of the assessee. It was prayed that the delay be condoned. Ld Sr DR opposed the condonation of delay. 3. After hearing the parties and perusing the condonation petition, we are satisfied that the assessee had sufficient cause in not filing the appeal ... within time and, therefore, we condone the delay of 162 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the ld CIT(A), NFAC has given four opportunities

Swayamshree Micro Credit Services, Bhubaneswar vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 542/CTK/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajeshh Kuamrassessment Year : 2014-15 Swayamshree Micro Credit Vs. Dcit (Exemption), Bhubaneswar Services 751007 Plot No 549/2126, Patia. Bhubaneswar, 751024 Pan/Gir No. Aaics 1120 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bibekananda Mohanty , Advoate Revenue By : Shri Prateek Ku Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01 /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 17/08/2023 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Bhhubaneswar-3/10370/2016-17 Passed For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appeal Is Delayed By 18 Days Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That Due To Health Problem Of The Chief

For Appellant: Shri Bibekananda Mohanty , AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Ku MIshra, Sr. DR

date, which has resulted delay of 18 days. It is prayed that the delay be condoned. Ld Sr DR did not oppose the condonation of delay. On consideration of the submission of ld AR of the assessee, we condone the delay of 18 days and admit the appeal for hearing

Career Point Montesari Siksha Samiti, Jaipur vs. Exemption Ward 1, Jaipur

ITA 526/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No. 526/Jpr/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Vs Exemption Career Point Montesari Siksha Samiti, Ward 1, Jaipur, C/O Ca R.S. Poonia, D-82B, Rajasthan Siwad Area, Krishna Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur-302015 Rajasthan Pan-Aaaac6169P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh
Section 143(3)Section 250

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 365 days in filing of appeal. Assessee has filed an application for 2 condonation of delay along with affidavit. The assessee society is located at Village Renwal, Phulera, Jaipur. The notice of hearing as well as communication of impugned order were ... passing of impugned order and immediately thereafter the appeal has been filed. After hearing Ld. DR and carefully going through the application for condonation of delay I am of the considered view that the delay is not intentional and delay has arisen due to a reasonable cause. I therefore taking

Shamkant Vikram Thakare, Dhule vs. ITO Ward 1, Dhule

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

ITA 905/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Pune01 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 250Section 5

outset, we find that the appeal before the Tribunal is time barred by 213 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating as under : “1. The appellate order passed by the CIT(A) for A.Y.2013-14 was issued on 19.06.2024. If the date of issuance and uploading ... 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

Ashok Diwan & Sons, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 928/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathanashok Diwan & Sons, Vs Ito Ward-29(1), Kolkata 92/1, Alipore Road, Diwan House, Kolkata Pan No. :Aacha 0995 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

appeal of the assessee is barred by 151 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay

Soma Banerjee, Kolkata vs. I.T.O. Ward 30(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 632/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Souvik Guha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

appeal of the assessee is barred by 602 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay

Imax Project India Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 11(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 425/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR
Section 250

delayed by 393 days. It is observed that along with the memo of appeal, the assessee has also filed an application/affidavit seeking condonation of delay and has re- quested that the delay may be condoned. Considering the application seeking condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein ... cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. Imax Project India Ltd.; A.Y. 2015-16 We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 03. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as un- der: “GROUNDS

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (in-Situ), Kolkata vs. Alosha Marketing Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1594/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathanjcit(In-Situ), Circle-4(1), Vs M/S Alosha Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata 62A, Hazra Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Aacca 1930 G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Priyanka Salarpuria, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29.01.2024 Passed For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Ms. Priyanka Salalpuria, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Delayed By 117 Days. In This Regard The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons For Delay Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 117 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. The Revenue In Its Appeal Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 1. The Delay In Filing Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Itat Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Is Occurred Due To Large Number Of Time Barring Cases U/S 148A Of The I.T.Act 1961 & System Problem Which May Kindly Be Condoned. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A). Nfac Has Erred In Deleting The Addition

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Salarpuria, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

assessee. 3. The appeal of the revenue is delayed by 117 days. In this regard the revenue has filed an application for condonation of delay stating sufficient reasons for delay which are plausible and not found to be false. Thus, the delay of 117 days in filing the present appeal

Vellusamy Kavitha, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Tiruppur

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

ITA 979/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi VenkataramanFor Respondent: Smt. Samantha Mullamudi
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 44A

Year is 2020-21. :- 2 -: 2. There is a delay of 3 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit stating therein the reason for delay. On perusal of the same, I find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing ... this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, I condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee read as follows: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the order of first appellate authority dated

Bright Classic Agencies, Tiruchengode vs. ITO, Ward-2, Tiruchengode

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

ITA 975/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi VenkataramanFor Respondent: Smt. Samantha Mullamudi
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270A

Year is 2017-18. :- 2 -: 2. There is a delay of 399 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit by the Managing Partner of the assessee firm stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons ... appeal was filed belatedly. On perusal of the same, I find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing this appeal and I condone the delay subject to assessee’s firm paying a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority

Karupannan Ramasamy Shivakumar, Salem vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Salem

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

ITA 706/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri G. Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Samantha Mullamudi
Section 127Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

Year is 2017-18. :- 2 -: 2. There is a delay of 69 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated in the affidavit for belated filing is that, the assessee ... contention. On perusal of the same, I find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, I condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under

Deivanayagam Bhuvaneshwari, Trichy vs. Income Tax Officer, Trichy

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

ITA 703/CHNY/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri Alagappan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Samantha Mullamudi
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Year is 2019-20. :- 2 -: 2. There is a delay of 7 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated in the affidavit for belated filing is that, the assessee ... perusal of the same, I find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, I condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. The solitary issue raised is with regard to addition u/s.68

Palam Rural Centre, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1560/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1560/Chny/2025 & S.A.No.51Chny/2025 [Arising In Ita No.: 1560/Chny/2025] िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2018-19 Palam Rural Centre, The Asst. Commissioner Of Pethampalayam, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Veerapandi S.O., Coimbatore. Tiruppur – 641 605. [Pan: Aaatp-2929-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Edser Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. Edser Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T
Section 11Section 12ASection 139

1560/Chny/2025 & S.A.No.51Chny/2025 9. However, the Addl. / Joint Commissioner (A)-2, Visakhapatnam passed order on 07/03/2025 by dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeal by holding as under: “2.2 The reasons given by the appellant society is not acceptable. The prescribed due date ... assessee has filled form 10B on 05.04.2023 and subsequently filed condonation petition u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act before CIT(E), for condonation of delay in filing Form-10B. In view of the above facts and considering the principle of natural justice, we set aside the order

Gaman Narayanachetty Govindaraju, Bangalore vs. Assessing Officer, Tamilnadu

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

ITA 2907/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

Year is 2017-18. :- 2 -: 2. There is a delay of 76 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated in the condonation petition for belated filing reads ... contention. On perusal of the same, I find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, I condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee