“condonation of delay”

Sehkari Vipdan Samiti Maryadit, Narsinghpur vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

order is bad.” “1. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to reject the application of condonation of delayed as the administrators are arrested and unable to file the appeal in due time during the assessment and appeal proceeding. 2. That the NFAC ... tenable evidence or averments with regard to the reason for delay. Therefore, he had requested the assessee to file an application for the condonation in delay alongwith evidences. In view of the fact that the assessee did not respond to this notice, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

Sehkari Vipdan Samiti Maryadit, Narsinghpur vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

order is bad.” “1. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to reject the application of condonation of delayed as the administrators are arrested and unable to file the appeal in due time during the assessment and appeal proceeding. 2. That the NFAC ... tenable evidence or averments with regard to the reason for delay. Therefore, he had requested the assessee to file an application for the condonation in delay alongwith evidences. In view of the fact that the assessee did not respond to this notice, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

Sehkari Vipdan Samiti Maryadit, Narsinghpur vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

order is bad.” “1. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to reject the application of condonation of delayed as the administrators are arrested and unable to file the appeal in due time during the assessment and appeal proceeding. 2. That the NFAC ... tenable evidence or averments with regard to the reason for delay. Therefore, he had requested the assessee to file an application for the condonation in delay alongwith evidences. In view of the fact that the assessee did not respond to this notice, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

Sarswati Bal Kalyan Samiti, Waidhan vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Jabalpur

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Sarswati Bal Kalyan V. Income Tax Officer, Samiti Mandla Ward, Mandla Waidhan Distt – Singrauli (Mp)- Central Revenue Annexe 486886. Building, Jabalpur- 482001. Pan:Aadas7349Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Dr. Hemant S. Modh, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura , Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

speaking order by ignoring the merit-based submission duly filed by the assessee. He also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing of appeal without appreciating the sufficient and genuine cause of delay as explained by the assessee. Thus, he prayed that the delay ... appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- “5.2 At the time of filing of appeal, the appellant had filed a petition for condonation of delay, The same has been taken on record and perused. 5.3 Section 119(2)(b) o the Act provides for condonation of delay

Sehkari Vipdan Samiti Maryadit, Narsinghpur vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

order is bad.” “1. That the NFAC has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case to reject the application of condonation of delayed as the administrators are arrested and unable to file the appeal in due time during the assessment and appeal proceeding. 2. That the NFAC ... tenable evidence or averments with regard to the reason for delay. Therefore, he had requested the assessee to file an application for the condonation in delay alongwith evidences. In view of the fact that the assessee did not respond to this notice, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

Basharat Saleem Rehtoo, Srinagar vs. DCIT, ACIT Cent. Circle, Srinagar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

emanated from the order of the ld. DCIT, Central Circle, Srinagar, dated 09/04/2021, passed u/s 143(3) of the Act 1961. 2. Condonation of Delay : This appeal is filed belatedly by 163 ( one hundred sixty three ) days . Application for condonation has been filed by the assessee along with an affidavit ... objection. 3.1 Taking into consideration the medical issue of the CA, as stated in the affidavit, we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 4. The grounds of appeal taken by assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. The CIT(A); erred in confirming

Income Tax Officer Ward-2 (2), Muktsar vs. Ajaib Singh, Village Bharu

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 354/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

dated 18/12/2023, which has arisen out of the order of the AO Ward-2(5) Muktsar passed u/s 143(3) dated 28.12.2019. Condonation of Delay: 2. It is seen that this appeal has been filed belatedly by 117 days (one hundred seventeen days). An application for condonation of delay ... condoned and the appeal may please be admitted to be heard on merits. 2.1 Considering the reasons contained in the application for condonation of delay, we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 are as under

State Health Society Goa, Panaji vs. CIT (Exemption), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.303/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2024-25) State Health Society Goa, Vs. Cit (Exemptions), S-9,Second Floor,Dhs, Unity Building Annex, Campal, Mission Road, Panaji-403001, Bangalore-560027, Goa. Karnataka. Pan .No. Aamas9496H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

bench, that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. 2 State Health Society Goa. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly ... condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(E) rejecting the application filed for registration u/sec12AA of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assesse society is constituted by the Government

Subrat Tarai, Rourkela vs. ITO Ward 3, Rourkela

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Before Shri Rl Reddy(Kz)

notice that he is having fair chance to succeed in the appeal on merits. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I condone the delay in filing of appeals as same was not intentional or for want of inaction on the part of the assessee/appellant. The Hon’ble Apex ... Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic

Subrat Tarai, Rourkela vs. ITO Ward 3, Rourkela

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Before Shri Rl Reddy(Kz)

notice that he is having fair chance to succeed in the appeal on merits. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I condone the delay in filing of appeals as same was not intentional or for want of inaction on the part of the assessee/appellant. The Hon’ble Apex ... Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic

Subrat Tarai, Rourkela vs. ITO Ward 3, Rourkela

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Before Shri Rl Reddy(Kz)

notice that he is having fair chance to succeed in the appeal on merits. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I condone the delay in filing of appeals as same was not intentional or for want of inaction on the part of the assessee/appellant. The Hon’ble Apex ... Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic

Subrat Tarai, Rourkela vs. ITO Ward 3, Rourkela

In the result, appeals appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz)

notice that he is having fair chance to succeed in the appeal on merits. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I condone the delay in filing of appeals as same was not intentional or for want of inaction on the part of the assessee/appellant. The Hon'ble Apex ... Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic

Shia Immami Ismalia Girls Academy, Bhuj vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.50/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: N.A.) Shia Immami Ismalia Girls Academy, Vs. Bhaveshwar Nagar, Bhuj, Kutch, Gujarat-370001 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abbts3142F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri R. B. Shah, Ar : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit Dr : 02/06/2025 : 30/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad Vide Order Dated 04.09.2024, Wherein Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Rejected The Application Filed By The Assessee In Form No. 10Ab Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Ii) Of The Act Holding That The Application Filed By The Assessee Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Ii) Of The Act In Form No. 10Ab Is Prima Facie Not Maintainable. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. That The Learned Cit (Exemption) Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Not Granting Registration To The Appellant Trust On The Mere Ground That In The Application Made In Form No. 10Ab Of The Income Tax Rules, Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act Had Inadvertently Been Typed On Account Of Typographical Error Instead Of Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter & Amend Or Delete Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

filed by the assessee, before this Tribunal is barred by limitation by 53 days. The assessee moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee did not get the order of the Ld. CIT(E), neither physically not through email ... interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay and stated that delay should not be condoned. 5. We have heard the both the parties on this primary issue, and we note that the order

Babu Bhura Varchand, Bhuj vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bhuj-1, Bhuj

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 43/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) Babu Bhura Varchand Income Tax Officer, 124, Ram Krishna Nagar, Bhuj Vs. Ward-3, Gandhidham (Bhuj-1), H.O. Bhuj, Kachchh – 370 001 Income Tax Officer, Bhuj, Nr. Leva Patel Hospital, Mundra Road, Bhuj – 370 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aixpv 1911 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

assessee for Assessment Year 2018-19, is barred by limitation by 784 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted the reasons for delay, stating that the email -ID provided in Form 35 at the time ... circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. 3.On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue has raised objection about condonation of delay and would submit that such huge delay should not be condoned on such flimsy grounds. The assessee does not deserve any leniency at this stage. Hence

Divya Darshan Enterprise, Junagadh vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 150/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Divya Darshan Enterprise Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Block No. 7/8, Meera Nagar, Opp. Circle – 1(1), Rajkot Shashikunj, Gandhipar, B/H. Sardarbaug, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Junagadh – 362001 Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfd5111A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025

outset, that the appeal filed late by 141 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The crux of the application for delay is as under; “4. Subsequently, Hon'ble Pr. Commission of Income-tax, Rajkot-1, Rajkot has vide ... notices, therefore, an affidavit is also placed on record. The reason explained by the Ld. AR for “non appearance” is sufficient reason for condonation of delay. We condoned the appeal of 141 days and heard an appeal of the assessee on merit. 6. Brief facts of the case that

Chimanlal Bhutalal Sagar, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, Rajkot

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 126/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (208-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Chimanlal Bhutalal Sagar Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/.O Ca Himansu Gandhi, 10Th Floor, D Tax (International Taxation)-1, Wing, Trade World Building, Kamala Room N.312, Ito, Amruta Mills Compaund, Lower Parle – 400013 Building, Nr. Girnar Cinema, M. G. Road, Gujarat – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Fdmps3665D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Himansu Gandhi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2025

grounds of appeal on merit 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filling appeal before him, even though the appellant is suffered from reasonable and sufficient cause. 3. On the facts and circumstances ... before the date of hearing. 11. Whether there is any delay in filing of appeal (if yes please attach application seeking condonation of delay) 3. At the outset, that the appeal filed late by 77 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay

Narendrasinh Manubha Zala, Bhachau vs. The ITO Ward-4, Gandhidham, (Bhuj-2)

In the result, the appeal is "Dismissed"”

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 101/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Narendrasinh Manubha Zala Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wd – 4, 102, 1St Floor, Income Tax Officer, Kariya Dham Bhat Pariya Vistar, Main Road, Plot No. 32, Sector No. 3, Nr. Bhachau - 370140 Iffco Colony, Gandhidham-370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpz8118R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr

outset, that the appeal filed late by 259 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The crux of the application for delay is as under; “That all notices during the course of assessment proceedings were issued one mail address ... consultant who logged into E-mail portal in January - 2025. In the interest of justice, we take a judicious view that we condoned the delay in filing appeal by 259 days. 7. Brief facts of the case that The assessee has filed original return of income on 09.11.2017 declaring total

Bhikhalal Dayalal Paun, Rajkot vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2(1), Rajkot.

The appeal is dismissed”

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 957/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Bhikhalal Dayalal Paun Vs. The Acit , Circle– 2(1), 2- Patel Park, Opp. Bhartiya School, Nr. Rajkot - 360003 Satellite Chowk, Pedak Road, Rajkot – 360003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aiapp6506A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr

outset, that the appeal filed late by 125 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The crux of the application for delay is as under; “The captioned appeal has been filed belatedly by 125 days. The reasons ... when the assessee logged into E-mail portal in October - 2024. In the interest of justice, we take a judicious view that we condoned the delay in filing appeal by 125 days. 7. Brief facts of the case that the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) received information