← 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

Kalpana Sanjay Satpute, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA 1104/Mum/2025

ITA 1104/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeekalpana Sanjay Satpute Vs Ito, Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai Flat No. B-202, Viceroy Park Chs, Plot No.03, Secor No.18, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai-400 705 Pan: Bghps5409P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Milind Sahasrabudhe, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 2Section 250

appellant, such as illness and natural disasters, even for that also need to be substantiated with evidence. For the exercise of discretion in condoning the delay, it must be established beyond the shadow of doubt that the appellant was diligent and was not guilty of negligence on its part ... capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. The fact that it was the "State" which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether

The Salsette Catholic Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6299/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe Salsette Catholic Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., The Bandra Gymkhana 42, St. Andrew Road Bandra (W), ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400050 Pan : Aaaat0195N V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-23(3), ……………… Respondent 605, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai - 400012 Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

year 2015-16. 2. The present appeal is delayed by 572 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the 2 present appeal, duly supported by the affidavit of its Secretary. In the application, the assessee submitted that during the appellate ... considered view that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal within the prescribed limitation period. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal and proceed to decide the same on the merits. 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following

Arunkumar Ramchand Poptani, Ulhasnagar, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) Kalyan, Kalyan

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

ITA 6296/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailarunkumar Ramchand Poptani, 302, Manwani Mension Gaol Maidan, Ulhasnagar, Thane - 421001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaxpp8396B V/S Ito, Ward - 2(1), Mohan Plaza, ……………… Respondent Kalyan

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

year 2010-11. 2. The present appeal is delayed by 2 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In the affidavit, it is submitted that the impugned order was received 2 by the assessee ... considered view that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal within the prescribed limitation period. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal and proceed to decide the same on the merits. 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following

Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5293/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms Aarti Sathe & Ms Aasavari Kadam,ARsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

intimation of the Registry, the appeal is delayed by 152 days. In this regard, the assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit. It is contented that the appeal before CIT(A) was filed manually and subsequently the appeal was migrated to NFAC. It received notice ... delay of 131 days in filing appeal. However, in the interest of in justice delay therein was condoned. On the same line, we condone this delay as well but with a cost as the assessee is a repeat offender. Accordingly, we are constrained to impose cost

Das Offshore Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3890/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Das Offshore Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sagar Uday, Plot No. F-3, Tax, Circle 1(2), Agroli, Sector 29, Mumbai Behind Cidco Bhawan, Vs. Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai - 400614 Maharashtra (Pan: Aaacd5996K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Ramesh Jain, Cas Revenue : Shri. Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1055302006(1), Dated 22.08.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 27.11.2017 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Ramesh Jain, CAsFor Respondent: Shri. Mahadevan A.M. Krishanan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

suspicion. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble members are requested to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT.” 3. At the very outset, it is noted that there is a brief delay ... days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, for which application for condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. We have gone through the said documents explaining the reasons for the brief delay of 10 days which justifies sufficient cause to condone the same. Considering

Sumer Chand Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 35(5), Civic Centre

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

ITA 354/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansumer Chand Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 35 (8), H.No.C-3/6, Prashant Viahr, Delhi. Delhi – 110 085. (Pan : Actpg0827E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 Date Of Order : 26.06.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 02.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Ld. Dr Of The Revenue Brought To Our Notice That Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit (A) With A Delay Of 406 Days. It Is Brought To Our Notice That Ld. Cit (A) Has Not Condoned The Abovesaid Delay & He Supported The Non-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

days. It is brought to our notice that ld. CIT (A) has not condoned the abovesaid delay and he supported the non- 2 condonation of delay due to inordinate delay in filing the appeal before ld. CIT (A). 3. After going through the orders of the lower authorities ... sake of overall justice, we are inclined to remit this issue back to the file of ld. CIT (A) after hereby condoning the delay. It is directed to ld. CIT (A) to decide the issue on merit after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee

Dharmendra Nath Dixit, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Faridabad

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

ITA 1698/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.1698/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19)

No.1694/Del/2025 for Asst. Year 2017-18 2. This appeal is filed delayed by 140 days before the Tribunal for which an application for condonation of delay is filed wherein it is prayed that the delay was due to negligence on the part of earlier Counsel who neither informed the appellant ... about the assessment proceedings nor responded to any notice issued by ld. CIT(A). He, therefore, prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and further requested to decide the appeal on merits. 2 IT Nos.1694 & 1698 /Del/2025 Dharmendra Dixit vs. ITO 3. After considering the facts

Dharmendra Dixit, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Fbd, Faridabad

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

ITA 1694/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.1698/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19)

No.1694/Del/2025 for Asst. Year 2017-18 2. This appeal is filed delayed by 140 days before the Tribunal for which an application for condonation of delay is filed wherein it is prayed that the delay was due to negligence on the part of earlier Counsel who neither informed the appellant ... about the assessment proceedings nor responded to any notice issued by ld. CIT(A). He, therefore, prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and further requested to decide the appeal on merits. 2 IT Nos.1694 & 1698 /Del/2025 Dharmendra Dixit vs. ITO 3. After considering the facts

Raja Qureshi, Hapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Hapur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5786/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royraja Qureshi Vs. Income Tax Officer, 489, Shakar Kui, Ward-3(5) Hapur Uttar Pradesh- 245101 Uttar Pradesh – 245101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aampq4637K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr
Section 147

Raja Qureshi (AY: 2013-14) 2. There is a delay of 30 days in filing the appeal. An application for condonation of delay has been filed contents whereof seems to be genuine. Hence, the delay is condoned. 3. None appeared at the time of call. It also appears from

The Indure Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assisstant Commissioner Income Tax, C R Building

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4256/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roythe Indure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Indure House, C.R. Building Savitri Cinema, R. No. 192A, 1St Floor, Greater Kailash Ii Delhi – 110002 Delhi- 110048 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact0121C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr
Section 143(2)

There is delay of 29 days in filing the appeal before us in support of which an application for condonation of delay is filed mentioning that the Chartered Accountant who was entrusted of the matter was unwell and later on died on 11.03.2025; the explanation supported by document is found

Pawan, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3241/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roysh. Pawan Vs. Income Tax Officer H. No. V & Po Bir Ward 3 Barkatabad Zila Parishd Building Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar, Rohtak-124001 Haryana 124103 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bqnpp1056P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Harpreet Kaur Hansra
Section 147

appeal filed before us is barred by limitation by 67 days in support of which the application for condonation of delay has been filed, contents whereof is as follows: P a g e | 3 Sh.Pawan (AY:2012-13) P a g e | 4 Sh.Pawan (AY:2012-13) 3. Having regard ... Sh.Pawan (AY:2012-13) remit the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the application for condonation of delay which is directed to be filed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) is further directed to dispose off the same in accordance with

Maa Harsidhhi Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 348/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.348/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. S-6 & Part Of S-7, 2Nd Floor, Block E, L.K Corporate Tower, Dhamtari Road, Dumurtarai, Raipur (C.G.)-490 215 Pan: Aagcm7052H

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Counsel has filed condonation petition a/w. affidavit. 3. The Ld. Sr. DR did not file any counter affidavit for objecting the condonation of delay nor could place on record any evidence to suggest that such delay has been caused due to deliberate conduct of the assessee. 4. After perusing

Dawoodi Bohra Jamat Committee Anjuman E Ezzi, Takhatpur, Bilaspur vs. CIT(Exemption), Bhopal

ITA 130/RPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 130/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2025-26)

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13Section 13(1)(b)

barred by limitation being filed with a delay of 25 days. Apropos, this defect, the assessee trust had submitted an application for condonation of delay stating that the communication for proceedings before the Ld. CIT(E) are 3 Dawoodi Bohra Jamaat Committee Anjuman E Ezzi, Takhatpur vs. CIT(E), Bhopal

Mintu Rani, Patna vs. Assessement Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 16/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 45 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide appeal number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069009534(1), dated 24-09-2024, has dismissed ... leading to the delay were beyond the appellant's control. It is therefore humbly prayed that your Lordships would be kind enough to condone the delay in filing the appeal and allow the appeal filed by the appellant to be proceeded with.”” 1.2. Considering the application for condonation of delay

Neelam Janardhan Rachalwar, Chimur vs. ITO Ward-2, Chandrapur

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 276/NAG/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jun 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryneelam Janardhan Ito, Ward-2, Chandrapur Rachalwar, Sai Mandir Road, Tilak Ward, Chimur, Vs. Chandrapur, Maharashtra Pan: Adqpr 7539 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha Loya, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

There is a delay of 57 days in filing the instant appeal, on which Assessee by filing a petition for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal which is duly supported with duly sworn affidavit, has claimed as under:- “1. That I am the appellant in the appeal ... intentional but occurred due to the above genuine and unavoidable reasons. 8. I say and submit that this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for hearing and adjudication on merits in the interest of justice, as I have a good

Adim Jati Seva Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Harda Madhya Pradesh vs. NFAC, ITO(1) Harda, Harda

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 71/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2020-21 Adim Jati Seva Sahakari Assessment Unit Samiti Mydt, Mohanpur Income Tax Department बनाम/ Harda Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaaa5193M Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 80P

filing of first-appeal to CIT(A). Ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed first-appeal to CIT(A) with a request for condonation of delay and explained the reasoning of delay but the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine on the footing that the supporting documents ... filing the appeal in time.” 4. Ld. AR next submitted that the assessee-society has now filed an Interlocutory Application before ITAT seeking condonation of delay in first- appeal duly supported by documents required by CIT(A), namely (i) the affidavit of Shri Shankar Malviya, new branch manager of assessee

Abhay Singh, Indore vs. ITO-3(1), Indore

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 52/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 147Section 253(5)

these appeals are delayed by 12 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay supported by affidavits on stamp. Referring to same, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee immediately after receipt of impugned orders, handed over the same ... there is a “sufficient cause” for delay and hence the delay should be condoned. Ld. DR for Revenue did not raise objection against condonation of delay. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found

Abhay Singh, Indore vs. ITO-3(1), Indore

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 51/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 147Section 253(5)

these appeals are delayed by 12 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay supported by affidavits on stamp. Referring to same, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee immediately after receipt of impugned orders, handed over the same ... there is a “sufficient cause” for delay and hence the delay should be condoned. Ld. DR for Revenue did not raise objection against condonation of delay. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found

Sachin Bhandari, Jaipur vs. Itd WD 6(4), Jpr, Jaipur

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

ITA 354/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Choudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with the following prayers: Sub: Regarding acceptance of application for condonation of delay in case of Shri Sachin Bhandari having appeal No. ITA No. 354/JAI/2025 ... appeal which is beyond control of appellant. In view of above submission you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable cause to condone the delay of 340 days. So, that proper inquiry can be conducted and substantial justice may be delivered to the appellant

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Faridkot

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections

ITA 993/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Registry has pointed out that both the Cross Objections are time barred by 26 days. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay wherein it has been pleaded that earlier litigation was being held by Shri Varun Makhija, Tax Consultant, in whose opinion, no Cross Objection ... also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the 1d. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction