← 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

Harees Haneefa, Kollam vs. DCIT Circle Intl.Txn, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as barred by limitation

ITA 286/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

constitute reasonable cause. HareesHaneefa, Kollam Page 3 of 4 6. After considering the arguments of ld. D.R. and perusing the evidences for condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that the explanation given by the assessee would not constitute reasonable cause. The explanation of the assessee is very general ... cause behind the delay and not length of delay, which is to be seen by the court while exercising its discretion for condoning the delay. 6.1 Further, we would like to refer to the recent judgement of the coordinate bench of Cochin Tribunal in the case of KoootheryNarayanANVijayan

Chandramoulieswara Charitable Trust, Trivandrum vs. CIT, Exemption, Trivandrum

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 276/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

settled position of law that it is cause of delay, which is to be considered by the court while adjudicating the application for condonation of delay and not the length of the delay. When we testified the reason given by the assessee with respect to the condonation of delay application ... held that it is not the length of the delay rather the cause behind the delay, which is to be seen while condoning he delay. In the case of Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara v. Labour Court, Bhilwara, (2009) 3 SCC 525, it was opined that while deciding an application

Chandramoulieswara Charitable Trust, Trivandrum vs. CIT, Exemption, Trivandrum

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 275/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

settled position of law that it is cause of delay, which is to be considered by the court while adjudicating the application for condonation of delay and not the length of the delay. When we testified the reason given by the assessee with respect to the condonation of delay application ... held that it is not the length of the delay rather the cause behind the delay, which is to be seen while condoning he delay. In the case of Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara v. Labour Court, Bhilwara, (2009) 3 SCC 525, it was opined that while deciding an application

The Kannur District Merchants Co-Operative Society Limited, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward 1 and Tps, Kannur

In the result, the appeal and stay application filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 181/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm & Sa No. 30/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Kannur District Merchants Co-Op. Society Ltd. ...... Appellant Vyapara Bhavan, Parakandy, Kannur 670001 [Pan: Aacak4660K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 &Tps, Kannur ...... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Akhil Shaji, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Akhil Shaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

outset, we find there is delay of 219 days in filing the appeal. The appellant is only seeking condonation of delay pleading ignorance of the order passed by the learned CIT(A). It is stated that the order was served through Income Tax Portal and not real time alert ... guilty. 3. In view of the above judgement, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for condoning the delay, hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine on the ground of delay. 4. Since the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, the stay application becomes

Praveen Sidharthan Pillai, Kollam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Alappuzha

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

ITA 111/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 69

have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, we hereby condone the delay of 43 days and proceed to decide the matter. 5. Brief facts of the case as coming out from the orders

Pairpra Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Ward-1 & Tps, Thodupuzha

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 768/COCH/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Paipra Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 11/266, Manary P.O., Ernakulam 686673 [Pan: Aaaap7650E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps .......... Respondent Thodupuzha Appellant By: Ms. Swathy S., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Swathy S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

other than co-operative societies. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him by 60 days in the absence of application seeking condonation of delay before him. 4. Being aggrieved ... outset, there is a delay of 108 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of pursuit of alternative remedy through petition u/s. 154 of the Act. 3 Paipra Service

Peroorkada Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO Ward-2(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 387/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

that there is a delay of 17 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the appellant had requested their auditors to prefer appeal against the order ... averments made in the condonation petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 9. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service

Peroorkada Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO Ward-2(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 380/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

that there is a delay of 17 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the appellant had requested their auditors to prefer appeal against the order ... averments made in the condonation petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 9. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service

Peroorkada Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ITO Ward-2(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 343/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

that there is a delay of 17 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the appellant had requested their auditors to prefer appeal against the order ... averments made in the condonation petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 9. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service

Avdhesh, Patel Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhar

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 802/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 144Section 69A

delayed by about 1 year and hence time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee firstly submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by a notarized affidavit. The affidavit so filed is scanned and re-produced below: Page 2 of 12 A vdesh ITA No. 802/Ind/2024 ... present matter may be remanded to the file of AO for adjudication afresh. 4. Ld. DR for Revenue left the issue of condonation of delay for the wisdom of bench without raising any objection. He, however, agreed that the present case is suitable for remanding back to the file

Tasleem Bano, Jaipur vs. Ward-5(4) Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Ms. Apeksha Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT -DR a
Section 127Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 292B

TASLEEM BANO VS ITO, WARD 5(4), JAIPUR which the assessee has filed an application dated 21-02-2025 for condonation of delay narrating therein following reasoning:- ‘’1. That the appellant has filed the present appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur against the order dated 11-05-2023 passed ... That the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have time and again held that the expression 'sufficient cause in matters of condonation of delay should receive a liberal interpretation so as to advance substantial justice. 6. That the delay in filing the present appeal is neither willful

Nanag Ram Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 1398/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Issuing The Notice U/S 148. The Action Of The Ld. Ao Was Illegal & Therefore Deserves To Be Quashed Or Set Aside. 2

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, CA andFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of the assessee filed an application dated 5-04-2025 for condonation of delay with following prayers. ''The delay in filing the present appeal has occurred due to genuine and unavoidable circumstances as detailed herein below. 17.08.2023 First ... rejected on technical grounds of limitation. In view of the above, it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits in the interest of justice and equity. To this effect, the assessee

Kamdhenu Foods, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 1 Sangli, Sangli

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

ITA 689/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.689/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 147Section 148Section 250

Registry has informed that there is delay of 286 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Affidavit for condonation of delay has been filed stating as follows : “I state that I am a partner in Partnership Firm M/s Kamdhenu Foods which is engaged in the business of export ... find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeal within the time limit stipulated under the Act. I therefore condone the delay of 286 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

Shivraj Shankar Gundewadi, Miraj vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 525/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.525/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shivraj Shankar Gundewadi, Vs. Ito, Nfac, Delhi. At Post Salgare, Tal.- Miraj, Pin Code- 416418. Pan : Ajdpg2612C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S. Sadananda Singh Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 21.11.2023 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S.144B Of The Act For Assessment Year 2017-18 Framed On 30.03.2022 By The Ito, Nfac, Delhi. 2. When The Case Was Called For None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. In The Past Also On The Dates Of Hearing Fixed On 02.04.2025 & 20.05.2025 Even After Validly Serving Of Notice Of Hearing, None Appeared Physically/Virtually. I Therefore Proceed To Deal With The Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh
Section 147Section 69

physically/virtually. I therefore proceed to deal with the appeal. 2 3. Registry informed that the appeal is delayed by 400 days. Application for condonation of delay has been filed. On perusal of the same, I notice that the main reason for delay is that the consultant who was looking after ... Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2025) INSC 382 dated 21.03.2025 I hereby condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. With the assistance of Ld. Departmental Representative I have perused the record and find that the assessee

Devdas Rajaram Shinde, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-9(4), Pune

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

ITA 277/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

Registry has informed that there is delay of 153 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Affidavit for condonation of delay has been filed stating as follows : “1. That my appeal with CIT (A) against order u/s 147 for the A.Y. 2012-2013 was disposed ... find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeal within the time limit stipulated under the Act. I therefore condone the delay of 153 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.CIT

Jito Mulund Chapter Foundation, Thane vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2528/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamorejito Mulund Chapter Foundation Cit (Exemption), Pune Manba House, Plot No-A 79, Vs. Road No.16, Wagle Estate, Thane (West), - 400604, Maharashtra Pan: Aafcj5968C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Gupta Department By : Shri Sandeep Sengupta, Cit Date Of Hearing : 02-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

filing of the appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed the condonation application along with an affidavit requesting for condonation of delay. The contents of the affidavit filed along with the condonation application reads as under: 2 “AFFIDAVIT I Nalin Shah, the trustee of Jito Mulund Chapter ... days. 6. Hence, this affidavit is being made in support of our application to the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai to condone the delay in filing of appeal. Whatever is stated hereinabove is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai this

Laxmi Venkateshwara Auto Finance, Nalgonda vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nalgonda

ITA 1077/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Mohd AfzalFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.A.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. 2. The learned Commissioner erred in not condoning the delay 145 considering the petition in which circumstances of delay are explained. 3 The learned Commissioner erred in not deciding the issue on merits ... learned Commissioner ought to have condone the delay of 145 days and should have decided the issue on merits, therefore, erred for not doing so.” 2. Succinctly stated, the A.O. based on the information received from Directorate of Systems, CBDT, New Delhi through the NMS module of ITBA that

Telangana State Medical Council, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions) Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 399/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)

under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act had been filed by the assessee before the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for condonation of delay. 9. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the appeal of the assessee. On Ground No. 2, the Ld. DR submitted that ... income and audit report in Form 10B on 31.03.2019, whereas the due date under Section 139(1) was 31.10.2018. Further, no application for condonation of delay was made by the assessee to the CBDT under Section 119(2)(b). Section 12A(1)(ba) of the Act mandates that

DCIT Exemptions Circle 1(1), Kolkata vs. B P Poddar Foundation for Education, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 637/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.637/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year. : 2022-2023) Dcit Exemptions Circle-1(1), Vs B P Poddar Foundation For Education, Kolkata 18, Poddar Court, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aaatb 5418 M (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiayn, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 23.12.2024, Passed By The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-9, Mumbai For A.Y.2022- 2023. 2. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 26 Days For Which The Revenue Has Filed The Necessary Condonation Petition. The Reasons Given Are Plausible & Same Are Accepted. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld.Ar Has Filed His Written Submission Which Read As Under :- Before The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata "A" Bench. Kolkata.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiayn, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

amply provides that where the delay in filing Form 10BB is beyond 365 days but does not exceed 3 years, the application for condonation of delay can be considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) provided the applicant satisfies that it was prevented by reasonable cause from filing ... Income Tax (Exemptions) in Kolkata vide its Letter dated 05/06/2025 along with a Copy of the Form 10BB. The said Letter for Condonation of Delay dated 05/06/2025 and also the CBDT Circular dated 18/11/2024 is duly attached as under for your kind perusal: "Annexure G: Letter for Condonation of Delay

Ragupathy Murugan, Villupuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Villupuram

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

ITA 999/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 999 & 1000/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2018-19 Shri Ragupathy Murugan, The Income Tax Officer, 80, Mararajapuram, Vs. Ward 1, Mariyamman Kovil Street, Villupuram. Villupuram – 605 602. Pan: Bltpm 8322G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Nidhi Jain, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Chandan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Nidhi Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Chandan, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

Nos.999 & 1000/CHNY/2025 2. There is a delay of 158 days in filing these appeals. The assessee has filed affidavits for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated in the affidavit for belated filing is that, the assessee was not well ... time. There is sufficient reason and no latches can be attributed to the assessee for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. At the very outset, we notice that the orders of First