← 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

Ss58Slmdtgov Hrsecschool Staff Coop Thrift and Credit Society Limited, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 2984/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2984/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 119(2)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 80ASection 80P

course of hearing, it is brought to our attention that the assessee has filed a petition u/s. 119(2) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing the return of income and the same is pending for disposal. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that the issue may be remitted

Bindu Sunilkumar Kalappat, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8262/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul RathiFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (SR. DR)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 250Section 54

days. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal petition on the ground of limitation as there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that the husband of the assessee, Shri Sunil Kumar Nana Kalappat ... noting a delay of 325 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. Although the assessee had filed a petition for condonation of delay along with Form No. 35, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the condonation petition and disposed of the appeal without adjudicating the issues on merits

Venkatesh Rajgopal Iyer, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8215/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gudher/ Shri Abhishek BhotraFor Respondent: Shri Sushil B. Shendge (SR DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 417 days and the penalty appeal with a delay of 226 days. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the petitions for condonation of delay on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for such delay. Accordingly, both appeals were dismissed on the ground of limitation ... heard to explain the aforesaid additions. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay in filing the appeal and to adjudicate the issues afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. It is clarified

Venkatesh Rajgopal Iyer, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8214/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gudher/ Shri Abhishek BhotraFor Respondent: Shri Sushil B. Shendge (SR DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 417 days and the penalty appeal with a delay of 226 days. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the petitions for condonation of delay on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for such delay. Accordingly, both appeals were dismissed on the ground of limitation ... heard to explain the aforesaid additions. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay in filing the appeal and to adjudicate the issues afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. It is clarified

Vesava Koli Samaj Shikshan Sanstha, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption) Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6751/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sushil R. Shendge, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)

passing the order merely relying on the impugned order passed u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act rejecting assessee's application for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10B, without waiting for the outcome of Writ Petition filed by the assessee. 2 Vesava Koli Samaj Shikshan Sanstha, Mumbai ... delay in filing Form 10B, assessee applied u/s. 119(2)(b) before the concerned jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax for the condonation of delay. However, ld. CIT(E), Mumbai vide his order dated 26.03.2025, rejected assessee’s prayer. 5. Assessee filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High

Vicky Navani, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jabalpur, Ward ))

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

ITA 124/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 253(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 275Section 44A

beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit ... appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and I.T.A. No.124/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2016-17 2 circumstances of the present appeal

Chittibabu Ghanta, Panaji, Goa vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 281/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

thereof, on rival party’s common request these appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together on the limited issue of condonation of delay in instituting these appeals before Tribunal for being disposed of by this common & consolidated order. 3. In advancing these matters together, the first appeal ... substance of such contents narrated in the former affidavits; submission made in the course of hearing were directed exclusively in seeking condonation of delay on twofold premise viz; (i) that the appellant was unaware of passing of impugned orders and (ii) ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 32 Chittibabu Ghanta

Chittibabu Ghanta, Panaji, Goa vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 280/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

thereof, on rival party’s common request these appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together on the limited issue of condonation of delay in instituting these appeals before Tribunal for being disposed of by this common & consolidated order. 3. In advancing these matters together, the first appeal ... substance of such contents narrated in the former affidavits; submission made in the course of hearing were directed exclusively in seeking condonation of delay on twofold premise viz; (i) that the appellant was unaware of passing of impugned orders and (ii) ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 32 Chittibabu Ghanta

Chittibabu Ghanta, Goa vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 279/PAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

thereof, on rival party’s common request these appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together on the limited issue of condonation of delay in instituting these appeals before Tribunal for being disposed of by this common & consolidated order. 3. In advancing these matters together, the first appeal ... substance of such contents narrated in the former affidavits; submission made in the course of hearing were directed exclusively in seeking condonation of delay on twofold premise viz; (i) that the appellant was unaware of passing of impugned orders and (ii) ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 32 Chittibabu Ghanta

Chittibabu Ghanta, Goa vs. ACIT Central Circle, Panaji, Goa

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 278/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

thereof, on rival party’s common request these appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together on the limited issue of condonation of delay in instituting these appeals before Tribunal for being disposed of by this common & consolidated order. 3. In advancing these matters together, the first appeal ... substance of such contents narrated in the former affidavits; submission made in the course of hearing were directed exclusively in seeking condonation of delay on twofold premise viz; (i) that the appellant was unaware of passing of impugned orders and (ii) ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 32 Chittibabu Ghanta

Shri Leo Diniz, Borda, Fatorda vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Panaji

The appeal is DISMISSED

ITA 150/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2016-17 Leo Deniz Row House No. 6 J P Andrade Residency, Borda Fatorda, Goa-403602 Pan: Amgpd8687A . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 02/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging Order Dt.

For Appellant: Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 253(1)

DCIT ITA No. 150/PAN/2024 AY: 2016-17 true sense, not the number but text of explanation is determinative in the matter of condonation of delay and it is worthy to note the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide para 15 summarized the same in ‘Basawaraj & Anr Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer ... facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within

Shree Maru Kansara Soni Gnati, Anjar vs. ITO Exemption Ward-1 Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 789/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 789/Rjt/2025 धििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Shree Maru Kansara Soni Gnati बनाम Income Tax Officer (Exemption), /Vs. C/O Rajesh K Soni, Shashtri Road, Ward- 1, Rajkot, Anjar, Kutch-360 001(Gujarat) It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan,Vatiaka, Rajkot-360 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarts 1920 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 274

appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.789/Rjt/2025 is barred by limitation by 228 days. The assessee has moved a petition for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the delay, in filing appeal. The learned Counsel therefore, adverted my attention to the affidavit filed in this regard citing ... reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay 228days. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that because of the mistake of the advocate of the assessee, the delay of 228 days has resulted for which the assessee should not be penalized. However

Nilesh Ashanand Thacker, Bhuj vs. ITO Ward 4, Gandhidham (Bhuj)

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

ITA 377/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Nilesh Ashanand Thacker, बनाम Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4, / Near-Laxmi Vekari Mahakali Gandhidham (Bhuj-2)-370 201 Vs. Shopping Mall, Jublee Circle, Bhuj, Kutch-300 001(Gujarat) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adhpt 8610R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

assessee, for Assessment Year 2012-13, is barred by limitation by 428 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. Learned Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons of delay stating that notices were served digitally and through email. The assessee had provided ... then it is not a mistake of the revenue authorities. Besides, the mistake of the tax consultant is not a sufficient cause to condone the delay. Therefore, delay should not be condoned and appeal of the assessee should be dismissed on account of delay. 5. We have heard both

The Narsapur Brahmana Samakhya, Narsapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palkol

In the result, the appeal of the appellant society is dismissed in- limine

ITA 738/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A). The Reasons Given For Delayed Filing Of Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A) Are As Follows :

Section 143(1)Section 253(5)

condoned and adjudicate the matter on merits. 3. After considering the submissions of the appellant society, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the condonation of delay in filing the income tax appeals is not automatic and the appellant must demonstrate “sufficient cause” for not filing appeal with the prescribed time ... without documentary proof. Since there is no evidence for the reasons mentioned by the appellant, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the application for condonation of delay was rejected. As a result, the appeal was dismissed in-limine as barred by limitation. It was concluded by Ld.CIT(A) that the appeal

Venkata Rao Pogarthi, Narsaraopet vs. Neac (CIT Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 426/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Itat With A Delay Of 55 Days. During The Hearing Proceedings Before

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 254(1)Section 69

ITAT with a delay of 55 days. During the hearing proceedings before ITAT, it is observed that the appellant filed an application to condone the delay as he was diagnosed with stroke in brain and undergoing treatment. Due to the same, it took some time for contacting the Authorised Representative ... condoned, because relevant evidences like medical prescriptions are also filed and hence, appeal be heard on merits. The Ld.DR opposed the condonation of delay. After hearing both sides, the Bench decides to condone the delay as there is sufficient cause and proceeds to adjudicate the matter on merits

Anil Bhagwan Turuk, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2585/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2584 & 2585/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Anil Bhagwan Turuk, V Income Tax Officer, 431/2329, Sant Tukaram S Ward-8(3), Pune. Nagar, Pimpri, Haveli, Pune – 411018. Pan: Aappt2146K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 23.07.2025 & 28.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 13.09.2022 & Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 22.03.2023 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 89(1)

months in filing appeal against the penalty order. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal stating that there was no sufficient reason for condonation of delay. Aggrieved by the ld.CIT(A)’s order, Assessee has filed two separate appeals. For the sake of convenience, both the appeals were heard together. 4. Ld.AR

Anil Bhagwan Turuk, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2584/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2584 & 2585/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Anil Bhagwan Turuk, V Income Tax Officer, 431/2329, Sant Tukaram S Ward-8(3), Pune. Nagar, Pimpri, Haveli, Pune – 411018. Pan: Aappt2146K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 23.07.2025 & 28.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 13.09.2022 & Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 22.03.2023 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 89(1)

months in filing appeal against the penalty order. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal stating that there was no sufficient reason for condonation of delay. Aggrieved by the ld.CIT(A)’s order, Assessee has filed two separate appeals. For the sake of convenience, both the appeals were heard together. 4. Ld.AR

Srimad Virat Pothuluri Veerabrahmendra Swamulavari Muttam, Kadapa vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Tirupati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2287/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राजस्व द्वारा /Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: | 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21/08/2023 & 21/10/2025 Respectively For The A.Y.2016-17.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate
Section 253(5)

delay of 632 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. The explanation put forth by the assessee is that the founder ("Mattam”) of the Trust ... delay and admission of the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) strongly objected to the condonation of delay. She submitted that the founder of the Trust admittedly expired on 08.05.2021, whereas the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was passed

Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam, Cuddapah vs. ITO., Exemption Ward, Tirupathi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1164/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.AR

delay of 632 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. The explanation put forth by the assessee is that the founder (“Mattam”) of the Trust ... delay and admission of the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) strongly objected to the condonation of delay. She submitted that the founder of the Trust admittedly expired on 08.05.2021, whereas the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was passed

Sona Gold Agrochem Private Limited, Patna vs. ACIT, Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 3108/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, J.C.I.T

note that the assessee’s appeal has been filed with a delay of three days, for which the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay stating the reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted that the assessee was engaged in the tax audit assignment during that period, there