← 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

Marvellous Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2918/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 250

parte as despite services of notice, the assessee has failed to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A). 2. An application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant/assessee stating that statistically there is delay of 2947 days and narrated the reasons for filing the appeal after ... days. 11. Hence, this affidavit is being made in support of its 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." 3. The application is supported

Icl Education Society, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Exem. Circle 1, Mumbai, Exemption. Circle

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

ITA 2761/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shir Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanicl Education Society Dcit Exem. Circle 1, 104, Sir Vithaldas Chambers, 16, Mtnl Building, Pedder Road, Bombay Samachar Marg, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400 026 Mumbai-400 023 Pan: Aaati 1111 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 250

income and the said order was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) observing that the Addl/JCIT does not have the authority to condone the delay in filing of Form 10B and the assessee may approach the competent authority authorized by CBDT for condonation of delay in filing Form ... required for trust or institution. Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the grounds in appeal stating that they do not have power to condone the delay in filing Form 10B, however the assessee was at liberty to seek condonation of delay from the Ld. PCIT. ICL Education Society 4. In this

Sadashiv Rama Kalokhe, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Circle-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 2757/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R
Section 270A

been brought to our notice that due to delay of 1383 days in filing the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) without condoning the delay has dismissed this appeal. This appeal pertains to the additions made by the AO amounting to Rs.4,22,50,000/-. 4. 1. Similarly ... additions mentioned hereinabove, the appeal of the assessee was late and barred by limitation and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. 5. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee furnished the affidavit stated that because of the negligence of the ld. Counsel, the appeal

Sadashiv Rama Khlokhe, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT Circle-3, Kayan

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 2658/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R
Section 270A

been brought to our notice that due to delay of 1383 days in filing the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) without condoning the delay has dismissed this appeal. This appeal pertains to the additions made by the AO amounting to Rs.4,22,50,000/-. 4. 1. Similarly ... additions mentioned hereinabove, the appeal of the assessee was late and barred by limitation and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. 5. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee furnished the affidavit stated that because of the negligence of the ld. Counsel, the appeal

Krishan Kumar Makrania Pro. M/S. Makrania Oil Mill, Bhiwani vs. DCIT Central Circle-I, Gurgaon

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 3214/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & AnkitFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

time barred by 272 days. In this regard, Ld. AR has reiterated the contentions raised in the application dated 18.01.2025 relating to condonation of delay by submitting that delay so occurred in filing the appeal is prayed to be condoned since the assessee was under advised by Sh. Sachin Goyal

Bhoop Singh Poonia, Nohar vs. ITO Ward, Nohar

ITA 405/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri R.S.Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl.CIT (Sr.DR)
Section 133ASection 142(1)

variance. In order to explain the delay, assessee has filed application which reads as under : Sub; Regarding acceptance of application for condonation of delay in case of Shri Bhoop Singh Poonia having appeal No. ITA No. 405/JODH/2024 (PAN: AKNPP9785A). Respected Members, With reference to above subject we request you that ... appeal which is beyond control of appellant. In view of above submission you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable cause to condone the delay of 201 days. So, that proper inquiry can be conducted and substantial justice may be delivered to the appellant. The assessee prays accordingly. Thanking

Shri Govind Sharad Raikar, Shiroda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3), Panaji

In the result, the Stay application filed by the assessee is infactious and is dismissed, and the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 70/PAN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.70/Pan/2025 & S.A .No.7/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2012-13 ) Shri Govind Sharad Raikar, Vs Ito-Ward-2(3), H.No.871/27,Pandagal, Aaykar Bhavan, . Near Kamakshi Edc, Patto, Ayurvedic College, Panjim, Shiroda, Goa-403001. Goa-403103. Pan .No.Aqrpr1349E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Arun.F,Naik.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr

appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has 2 ITA. No. 70/PAN/2025 & S.A.No.7/PAN/2025 Shri.Govind Sharad Raikar. 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

Radha Bai, Bhopal vs. ITO 5(1) Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 843/IND/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jun 2025AY 2014-2015

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

Section 144Section 253(5)

days and 135 days respectively and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay supported by affidavits on stamp. Referring to contents of same, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a lady; that she has ill health; that ... Page 7 of 10 Radha Bai ITA No. 842 & 843/Ind/2024 - AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15 4. Ld. AR prayed the Bench to condone the delays. He further prayed to remand these matters to the file of AO for adjudication afresh as requested in Para 1.11 of Written-Synopsis re-produced

Radha Bai, Bhopal vs. ITO 5(1), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 842/IND/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jun 2025AY 2013-2014

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

Section 144Section 253(5)

days and 135 days respectively and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay supported by affidavits on stamp. Referring to contents of same, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a lady; that she has ill health; that ... Page 7 of 10 Radha Bai ITA No. 842 & 843/Ind/2024 - AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15 4. Ld. AR prayed the Bench to condone the delays. He further prayed to remand these matters to the file of AO for adjudication afresh as requested in Para 1.11 of Written-Synopsis re-produced

Shri Khambhat Taluka Sarvajanik Kelavani Mandal, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 598/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

that the appeal will be filed in time. He submitted that the lapse on the part of the accountant constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay. He, therefore, prayed to condone the delay in the present matter. 3. Per contra, Sh. R P Rastogi, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that ... explanation of the assessee for the delay does not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay. He submitted that when the accountant had been negligent before the AO and also before the Ld. CIT(A), which resulted in ex-parte orders, the assessee should have taken precaution to ensure that

Namdeo Shimpi Samaj Panch Mandal, Ahilyanagar vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 443/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jun 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas S. Mundhe
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 5

Registry has informed that there is delay of 302 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Affidavit for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee and the same reads as follows : “1. That at the time of filing the application for Registration under section 12A, the mail ... technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits by adopting a liberal approach towards ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the delay. The Court considering an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal

Boopathi Poongothai, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 929/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 929/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 Shri Boopathi Poongothai, The Income Tax Officer, 58A, Race Course Road, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 1(1), Coimbatore South, Coimbatore – 641 018. Coimbatore Racecourse S.O., Coimbatore – 641 018. Pan: Arkpp 7847H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri K. Subash Anbarasu, Advocate For Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Chandan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri K. Subash Anbarasu, Advocate for Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Chandan, JCIT
Section 250

Assessment Year is 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 1 day in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay. On perusal of the same, we find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone ... reasonable cause for condoning the same. 4. On perusing the order of the FAA, we noted that the assessee had filed application for condonation of delay before the FAA stating the reason that the assessee was hospitalized and has undergone medical treatment. Due to continuous medical treatment, the assessee

Sellappa Karuppusamy, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pollachi

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

ITA 810/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.810/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sellappa Karuppusamy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Thokkuthottam, Pollachi, Ward 1, Coimbatore 642 001. Pollachi. [Pan:Bxipk7422C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. S. Mathangi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 4 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Rejecting The Condonation Petition & Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Ms. S. Mathangi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

filing the appeal. Since the assessee could not 3 I.T.A. No.810/Chny/25 file any supporting documentary evidence in support of the affidavit filed for condonation of delay, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. The ld. AR Ms. S. Mathangi, Advocate submits that out of the total

Paramasiva Naidu Muthuvelraj, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-7(3), Chennai

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

ITA 778/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.778/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Paramasiva Naidu Muthuvelraj, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No. 1496, Old No. 13, Non Corporate Ward 7(3), 16Th Main Road, Anna Nagar West, Chennai. Chennai 600 040. [Pan:Apgpm5212F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69

year 2011-12. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 534 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. 2 I.T.A. No.778/Chny/25 Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated

Daraius Homi Bilimoria, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-55, Mumbai

In the result, the various grounds of appeal raised by the

ITA 2593/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Daraius Homi Bilimoria Commissioner Of Income Tax C/O Hfk Madan, 308, Apeejay House, Vs (Appeals) -55, Mumbai. 130, Shahid Bhagatsingh Marg, Mumbai – 400001. [Pan No. Aacpb4087E] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 112Section 254(1)Section 48Section 55(2)(b)Section 55A

filed only on 15.04.2025, thus, there is delay of 471 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but for the reasons beyond the control of assessee. The assessee is residing in Australia ... case on merit and would suffer prejudice if delay in filing appeal is not condoned. The ld. AR of the assessee prayed for condoning the delay and to consider the appeal of assessee on merit. 8. On merit, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that he has already explained

R.C School of St. Teresas, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2512/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) R.C. Church Of St. Josephs Ito Exemption Ward-2(2), St. Joseph R.C. Church, Robert Vs Mumbai Road, Colaba, Mumbai – 400005. [Pan No. Aaatr3519F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 254(1)

intentional nor deliberate. The delay is only of 56 days and mainly caused due to the fact that assessee was pursing remedy for condonation of delay section 119(2)(b) from the office of ld. CIT(E). The delay is not inordinate or excessive. The assessee has good case ... Kirshnan Educational Trust (2024) 207 ITD 7. 4. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue on the plea of condonation by delay submits that the bench may take decision as per law. On merit, the ld. Sr. DR for revenue submits that the assessee has not fulfilled

R.C.Church of St. Josephs, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1268/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) R.C. Church Of St. Josephs Ito Exemption Ward-2(2), St. Joseph R.C. Church, Robert Vs Mumbai Road, Colaba, Mumbai – 400005. [Pan No. Aaatr3519F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 254(1)

intentional nor deliberate. The delay is only of 56 days and mainly caused due to the fact that assessee was pursing remedy for condonation of delay section 119(2)(b) from the office of ld. CIT(E). The delay is not inordinate or excessive. The assessee has good case ... Kirshnan Educational Trust (2024) 207 ITD 7. 4. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue on the plea of condonation by delay submits that the bench may take decision as per law. On merit, the ld. Sr. DR for revenue submits that the assessee has not fulfilled

Ajay Paharia HUF, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 41(3)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1186/MUM/2025[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 250

appeal is time barred and in this regard Ld. AR has drawn our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. 3. After having gone through the contents of the affidavit and also after hearing the parties on question ... condoning the delay, we found that it has been specifically mentioned in the affidavit that the order of Ld. CIT(A) was sent to the registered e-mail. However, it unfortunately ended up in the spam folder of registered e-mail account. It was further submitted that since the assessee

I P Constructions P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-12(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 63/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. I.P. Constructions Private Vs. Acit, Limited, 210 First Floor, Phool Circle-12(2), Singh Market Main, Delhi Vikas Marg, New Delhi Pin 1100 92 Pan No. Aabci4548K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Chandra Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(a)

under Section 154 before the Ld. AO, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.02.2020. 3. Against order dated 21.02.2020, assessee preferred application for condonation of delay of 337 days in filing appeal and appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 10.11.2022, condoned the delay of 337 days

Aarush Jain Family Trust, Ashoknagar vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward Gwalior, Gwalior

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 170/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 250

Appeals) has dismissed both the first appeals of assessee as barred by limitation upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. ITA No.169 & 170/Agr/2025 2. These appeals have been preferred on the ground, amongst others, that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeals upon rejecting ... prayer for condonation of delay and without affording proper opportunity to the appellant/assessee. 3. Perused the records and heard learned representative for the assessee and learned departmental representative for the Revenue. 4. At the very outset, learned AR has submitted that the appellant/assessee filed first appeals on 04.11.2023 against