← 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

Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 579/HYD/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.579/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24) Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Vs. Income Tax Officer Temple, Hyderabad (Exemptions) Ward-1(4) Pan:Aaeas2164C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Srikanth Sirigadi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 31/01/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple Is A Deity Registered U/S 12A & 12Aa Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Temple Is Under The Management & The Administrative Control Of The Endowment

For Appellant: Shri Srikanth Sirigadi, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple the audit report on or before the due date of 31/10/2023. Further, the appellant had also filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing Form 10BB before the appropriate authority and the same is pending for adjudication. Although, these facts were brought to the notice ... relevant A.Y on due date but, uploaded Form 10BB belatedly i.e. 2 ½ years before the assessment order was passed, application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10BB ought to have been decided by the Commissioner by taking a liberal approach. The sum and substance of ratio laid down

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 452/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate and Ms. Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 45

that the appeal of the revenue has been filed belatedly by 28 days. In this regard, the revenue has filed an application for condonation of delay stating sufficient reasons which are plausible and not found to be false. Thus, the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal is condoned

Dishari Social Welfare and Development Trust, Dubrajpur vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 220/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.220/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2023-2024) Dishari Social Welfare & Vs Cit(Exemption), Kolkata Development Trust, Nutanpally, Dubrajpur, Wb Pan No. :Aabtd 8637 K (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024 Of The Ld. Cit(Exemption), Kolkata, For The Assessment Year 2023-2024. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Raja Sengputa, Ld. Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Time Barred By 272 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay. Though Affidavit Justifying The Delay Of 272 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Not Placed In The File, However, The Same Is Uploaded In The E-Filing Portal Of The Tribunal. The Reasons Given In The Affidavit Seem To Be Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Therefore, Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, We Condone The Delay Of 272 Days & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, CIT-DR

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is time barred by 272 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. Though affidavit justifying the delay of 272 days in filing the appeal is not placed in the file, however, the same is uploaded ... affidavit seem to be plausible and not found to be false. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the delay of 272 days and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 2 4. Ld CIT-DR submitted that proper opportunities were allowed

Wavoo Real Estate Corporation, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Applications are dismissed

ITA 764/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.762, 763 & 764/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 & S.A. Nos. 52, 53 & 54/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. Nos.762, 763 & 764/Chny/2025] Wavoo Real Estate Corporation, Vs. The Dcit/Assistant Commissioner Of Wavoo Mansion, 48/39, Rajaji Salai, Income Tax, 1St Floor, Room No. 106, Mannady, Non Corporate Ward 12(1), Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafw0270G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Stay Applications Are Filed By The Petitioner Seeking Grant Of Stay From Recovery Of Outstanding Disputed Demand Of ₹.1,07,85,566/- For Ay 2013-14, ₹.2,61,518/- For Ay 2014-15 & ₹.13,88,831/- For Ay 2016-17 Till The Final Disposal Of The Appeals Filed By The Petitioner.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194I

/Chny/25 5. We find that these three appeals are filed with a delay of 104 days. The assessee filed separate affidavits for condonation of delay stating the reasons. On examination of the said affidavit as well as hearing the ld. DR, we find the reasons stated by the assessee ... impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has good and sufficient reason for filing the appeal belatedly and condoned the delay. 10. On perusal of the assessment order as well as impugned order, we note that there was no assistance from the assessee and the Assessing

Wavoo Real Estate Corporation, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Applications are dismissed

ITA 763/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.762, 763 & 764/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 & S.A. Nos. 52, 53 & 54/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. Nos.762, 763 & 764/Chny/2025] Wavoo Real Estate Corporation, Vs. The Dcit/Assistant Commissioner Of Wavoo Mansion, 48/39, Rajaji Salai, Income Tax, 1St Floor, Room No. 106, Mannady, Non Corporate Ward 12(1), Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafw0270G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Stay Applications Are Filed By The Petitioner Seeking Grant Of Stay From Recovery Of Outstanding Disputed Demand Of ₹.1,07,85,566/- For Ay 2013-14, ₹.2,61,518/- For Ay 2014-15 & ₹.13,88,831/- For Ay 2016-17 Till The Final Disposal Of The Appeals Filed By The Petitioner.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194I

/Chny/25 5. We find that these three appeals are filed with a delay of 104 days. The assessee filed separate affidavits for condonation of delay stating the reasons. On examination of the said affidavit as well as hearing the ld. DR, we find the reasons stated by the assessee ... impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has good and sufficient reason for filing the appeal belatedly and condoned the delay. 10. On perusal of the assessment order as well as impugned order, we note that there was no assistance from the assessee and the Assessing

Wavoo Real Estate Corporation, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Applications are dismissed

ITA 762/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.762, 763 & 764/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 & S.A. Nos. 52, 53 & 54/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. Nos.762, 763 & 764/Chny/2025] Wavoo Real Estate Corporation, Vs. The Dcit/Assistant Commissioner Of Wavoo Mansion, 48/39, Rajaji Salai, Income Tax, 1St Floor, Room No. 106, Mannady, Non Corporate Ward 12(1), Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafw0270G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Stay Applications Are Filed By The Petitioner Seeking Grant Of Stay From Recovery Of Outstanding Disputed Demand Of ₹.1,07,85,566/- For Ay 2013-14, ₹.2,61,518/- For Ay 2014-15 & ₹.13,88,831/- For Ay 2016-17 Till The Final Disposal Of The Appeals Filed By The Petitioner.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194I

/Chny/25 5. We find that these three appeals are filed with a delay of 104 days. The assessee filed separate affidavits for condonation of delay stating the reasons. On examination of the said affidavit as well as hearing the ld. DR, we find the reasons stated by the assessee ... impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has good and sufficient reason for filing the appeal belatedly and condoned the delay. 10. On perusal of the assessment order as well as impugned order, we note that there was no assistance from the assessee and the Assessing

Mani Shanthi, Namakkal vs. ITO, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 1224/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1224/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mani Shanthi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 40, Perumal Koil Street, Circle 1, Sendamangalam, Namakkal 637 407. Erode. [Pan:Ajnps2143N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Senthil Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.10.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 393 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

For Appellant: Shri Senthil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

year 2020-21. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 393 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 2 I.T.A. No.1224/Chny/25 find the reasons stated

Gautam Mody, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ncw-10(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1210/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1206, 1207, 1208, 1209 & 1210/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Gautam Mody, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, F-5, 2Nd Floor, Jeewan Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 10(1) Jungpura, New Delhi 110 014. Chennai. [Pan:Aanpg1958Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Gautam Mody, Assessee ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 10.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13, Orders Dated 29.01.2025 For Ay 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 & Order Dated 28.03.2024 For Ay 2015-16. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Mody, assesseeFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 453 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 are bonafide, which ... find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 28 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 are bonafide, which really prevented

Gautam Mody, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ncw-10(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1209/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1206, 1207, 1208, 1209 & 1210/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Gautam Mody, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, F-5, 2Nd Floor, Jeewan Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 10(1) Jungpura, New Delhi 110 014. Chennai. [Pan:Aanpg1958Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Gautam Mody, Assessee ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 10.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13, Orders Dated 29.01.2025 For Ay 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 & Order Dated 28.03.2024 For Ay 2015-16. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Mody, assesseeFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 453 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 are bonafide, which ... find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 28 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 are bonafide, which really prevented

Gautam Mody, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ncw-10(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1208/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1206, 1207, 1208, 1209 & 1210/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Gautam Mody, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, F-5, 2Nd Floor, Jeewan Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 10(1) Jungpura, New Delhi 110 014. Chennai. [Pan:Aanpg1958Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Gautam Mody, Assessee ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 10.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13, Orders Dated 29.01.2025 For Ay 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 & Order Dated 28.03.2024 For Ay 2015-16. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Mody, assesseeFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 453 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 are bonafide, which ... find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 28 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 are bonafide, which really prevented

Gautam Mody, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ncw-10(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1207/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1206, 1207, 1208, 1209 & 1210/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Gautam Mody, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, F-5, 2Nd Floor, Jeewan Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 10(1) Jungpura, New Delhi 110 014. Chennai. [Pan:Aanpg1958Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Gautam Mody, Assessee ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 10.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13, Orders Dated 29.01.2025 For Ay 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 & Order Dated 28.03.2024 For Ay 2015-16. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Mody, assesseeFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 453 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 are bonafide, which ... find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 28 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 are bonafide, which really prevented

Gautam Mody, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ncw-10(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1206/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1206, 1207, 1208, 1209 & 1210/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Gautam Mody, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, F-5, 2Nd Floor, Jeewan Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 10(1) Jungpura, New Delhi 110 014. Chennai. [Pan:Aanpg1958Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Gautam Mody, Assessee ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 10.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13, Orders Dated 29.01.2025 For Ay 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 & Order Dated 28.03.2024 For Ay 2015-16. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Mody, assesseeFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 453 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 are bonafide, which ... find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 28 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 are bonafide, which really prevented