← 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

Devision Estate Private Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed with liberty as granted

ITA 100/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale
Section 144Section 144BSection 147

days and, therefore, the Registry had issued defect notice dated 13/02/2025. The assessee neither rectified the defect nor filed any appropriate application for condonation of delay. Even otherwise, the assessee, before the Ld. Commissioner as well, filed first appeal with a delay of more than eight months. It is also

Rishabh Kumar Jain, Bhopal vs. ITO, Bhopal

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 60/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 253

appeal is e-filed on 14.01.2025. Hence appeal is fixed beyond statutory time limit of 60 days. The assessee has filed condonation of delay application along with an affidavit in support. The Ld. AR has pointed out to us during the hearing that the assessee is a very senior citizen ... delay as aforesaid. Per contra Ld. DR for Revenue has no objection if this Tribunal in it’s wisdom deems fit to condone the delay. The Ld. AR has prayed for condonation of delay in rejoinder too. Accordingly after perusing the condonation of delay along with affidavit in support

ITO(Exemption), Indore vs. Arogya Seva Mandal, Burhanpur Madhya Pradesh

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 750/IND/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jun 2025

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

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Addl. /JCIT(A) has erred in condoning the delay in filing the audit report in Form 10B, given that the Adal. /JCIT(A) lacks the statutory authority to grant such condonation. It is submitted ... Addl/JCIT(A) should have directed the assessee to approach the competent authority, Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), for filing an application for condonation of delay. 3. The appellant reserves his right to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal.” 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides and case

Vikas Mineral Foods Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1001/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1001/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vikas Mineral Foods Pvt.Ltd., The Ito, House No.20, Nac, Vs Ward 3(4), Shivalik Enclave, Chandigarh. Mani Majra. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcv2453J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Harry Rikhy, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Harry Rikhy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Registry has pointed out that appeal of the assessee is time barred by 75 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. It has pleaded that login A.Y.2011-12 2 ID of the Accountant Shri Surinder Kumar S/o Shri Jia Lal Goyal was given on the Income ... also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. 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

Shri Pragati Education and Charitable Trust, Rajkot vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2157/AHD/2024[NA ]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2025

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Since both appeals involve common facts, parties, and legal issues, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order. Condonation of Delay 2. It is noted that both appeals were filed with a delay of 23 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported ... subsequent time taken in consulting legal professionals before filing the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay. We find the explanation to be bona fide and supported by reasonable cause. Accordingly, the delay of 23 days in filing both the appeals

Shri Pragati Education and Charitable Trust, Rajkot vs. The CIT(Exmption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2156/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2025

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Since both appeals involve common facts, parties, and legal issues, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order. Condonation of Delay 2. It is noted that both appeals were filed with a delay of 23 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported ... subsequent time taken in consulting legal professionals before filing the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay. We find the explanation to be bona fide and supported by reasonable cause. Accordingly, the delay of 23 days in filing both the appeals

Kiran Kumar Bussa, Karimnagar vs. ITO., Ward-2, Karimnagar

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

ITA 496/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.496/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Kiran Kumar Bussa Vs. Income Tax Officer Karimnagar Ward – 2 Pan:Ajtpb5696F Karimnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29/10/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac For The A.Y.2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 84 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Supported By An Affidavit.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR

A.Y.2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 84 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit. Page 1 of 7 ITA No 496 of 2025 Kiran Kumar Bussa 3. The learned AR of the assessee ... reasons explained by the assessee in the affidavit are sufficient for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation and therefore, we condone the delay of 84 days in filing the present appeal. 7. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page

Abbvie Healthcare India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 981/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri T. Suryanarayana, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R
Section 250

assessee was picked up for scrutiny and the AO issued various notices as is mentioned in para 4 of the affidavit, for condonation of delay. All these notices were duly complied with by the assessee vide its submission starting from July, 2021 to March, 2023. Thereafter, the assessee got merged ... facts, and ordinate delay of 46 days, we are of the view that purpose of justice would be served if we condone the delay of 46 days and restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, that

Bosch Global Software Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2591/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Prabhakar S., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R
Section 250

short “The Act”). 2. At the outset, we observe that the ld. CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee appearing on behalf of the assessee pointed out that the reasons for the delay were duly mentioned ... Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 2 pertaining to Covid-19 period and hence the ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and then could have decided the matter. 4. Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of authorities below. 5. After considering the rival submissions

Doberman Security Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1827/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Gokul, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 250Section 91(2)Section 92Section 92(1)

outset, there is a delay of 445 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit dated 16.9.2024 stating Doberman Security Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru Page 2 of 4 the reasons for the delay. Further ... Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Further, ld. A.R. also submitted that as per the VSV Scheme, 2024, if the Hon’ble Bench condones the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, the assessee will become eligible for the VSVS, 2024. The ld. DR on the other hand filed

Gaurav Rajesh Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward -3(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 675/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh / AkshayFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

There is a delay of 411 days in filing the appeal before us. The ld. AR in this regard filed a petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit from the assessee. The primary reason as stated by the assessee for the delay is that the assessee has not received ... heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the issue of condoning the delay in filing the appeal in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) has laid certain principles

Yashomandir Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 27, Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5597/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Kale, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

PCIT. 3. There is a delay of 521 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. The ld. AR with regard to condonation of delay submitted that the assessee was incorrectly advised by the Tax Consultant that ... intentional or deliberate but due the bonafide belief based on the advise of the tax consultant. The ld AR thus prayed for the condonation of delay. 4. The ld. DR on the other hand vehemently opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that assessee being not aware

Subhash Khetmal Shah, Nipani vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nipani

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

ITA 51/PAN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.51/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Subhash Khetmal Shah, Vs National E – 1 Ashok Nagar, Assessment Centre . Nipani-591237, Delhi-110001 Karnataka. . Pan .No. Ahcps1301B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal

Vineet Singh Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Bilaspur

ITA 239/RPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 239/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 275

earlier by this tribunal, and thereby have dismissed the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation, rejecting the assessee’s plea for condonation of delay involved therein of 371 days. 4. Aggrieved with the tribunal’s aforesaid order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High ... Court wherein the assessee’s request for condonation of delay has been allowed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court with the directions to remit back the appeal to ITAT for deciding the same on merits in accordance with law. The observations of 3 Vineet Singh Construction Company Private Limited

Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Muzaffarpur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Muzf., Muzzaffarpur

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

ITA 162/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata) आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.162/Pat/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Muzaffarpur Sakra Dholi, Majholia, Chandanpatti, Muzaffarpur Pan No. :Aoxpg 2700 A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Assessee Present In Person राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Id. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 23.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Present In Person & Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 33 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reason For Delay In Filing The Appeal, Which Are Not Found To Be False & Also The Ld.Sr. Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, The Delay Of 33 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Assessee present in personFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.DR

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 33 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reason for delay in filing the appeal, which are not found to be false and also the ld.Sr ... object to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 33 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 2 4. It was submitted by the assessee that he is working as a teacher in a private school. He was doing cultivation on land which

Kishori Capital Markets Pvt. Ltd., Stephen House vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Bhawan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 154/PAT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata) आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.154/Pat/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Kishori Capital Markets Pvt Ltd Vs Ito Ward-2(1), Patna 116A, Stephen House, 6Th Floor 4, Bbd Bagh (East), West Bengal Pan No. : Aaack 9877 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Id. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 06.07.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 544 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Delay, Which Are Not Found To Be False. Accordingly, I Condone The Delay Of 544 Days In Filing The Present Appeal & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.DR

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 544 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons for delay, which are not found to be false. Accordingly, I condone the delay of 544 days in filing the present

Ashok Kumar Mandal, Forbesganj vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(30, Purnea

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

ITA 153/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.DR

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 482 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein that the assessee lives in remote area and the accounting/staff who was looking after the accounting work

Ashok Kumar Singh, Patna vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 4 Patna, Patna

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

ITA 639/PAT/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Jun 2025AY 2014-2015
For Appellant: Shri Nishant Maitin, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.DR

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 1083 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein that the chartered accountant who was looking after the tax matter of the assessee was suffering from cancer and subsequently left

Anil Kumar Pandey, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Aurangabad

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

ITA 625/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata) आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.625/Pat/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Anil Kumar Pandey, Vs Ito, Ward-3(3), Aurangabad, Shop No.46, Parishad Bazar, Bihar Aurangabad, Bihar-824101 Pan No. :Bbkpp 7192 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nishant Maitin, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/06/2025

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Maitin, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr.DR

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 304 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit along with medical documents stating therein sufficient reason for delay in filing the appeal, which are not found to be false

Deep Educational and Cultural Trust, Narmada vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 778/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2025

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

instant case, we observe that only two notices of hearing were issued to the assessee / applicant trust. Further, in the application for condonation of delay, the assessee trust has submitted that the trust is situated in a remote rural area having poor internet connectivity and further the trustees are semi