← 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

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 169/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

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

Mohd. Yunus Warsi, Agra vs. ITO 1(1)(1), Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 168/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 144BSection 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

assessment year 2014-15, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the first appeal upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. 2. At the very outset, ld. Representative for the assessee has submitted that this appeal was filed on 28.03.2025 against the impugned order dated ... brain and some vital parts of the body. The assessee was also not conversant with the accounting and income tax matters. Prayed to condone the delay. We notice that the assessee has filed an affidavit in support of these facts and delay condonation application which are un-controverted. Hence, there

Oxford Siksha Samiti, Bhopal vs. ITO, Exemption, Gwalior

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 157/AGR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)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 of 820 and 873 days. ITA No.156 & 157/Agr/2025 2. At the very outset, learned representative for the assessee has submitted that the learned first appellate authority ... condoned the delay of 820 days and 873 days respectively in filing the first appeals before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Learned AR has submitted that the first appeals were instituted on 28.07.2023 and 29.07.2023 against the orders u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 29.03.2021 and 05.02.2021 respectively. Learned

Oxford Siksha Samiti, Bhopal vs. ITO, Exemption, Gwalior

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 156/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)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 of 820 and 873 days. ITA No.156 & 157/Agr/2025 2. At the very outset, learned representative for the assessee has submitted that the learned first appellate authority ... condoned the delay of 820 days and 873 days respectively in filing the first appeals before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Learned AR has submitted that the first appeals were instituted on 28.07.2023 and 29.07.2023 against the orders u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 29.03.2021 and 05.02.2021 respectively. Learned

Mustakeen Ahamad, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer -2(1)(2), Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 149/AGR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 249Section 250

year 2011-12, wherein the Id. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee's appeal ex parte upon rejection of assessee's prayer for the condonation of delay. 2. At the very outset, learned representative for the assessee has submitted that this appeal was filed on 19.03.2025 against the impugned order dated ... order only when Income-tax Inspector raised the demand. The assessee has filed an affidavit in support of the said facts. Prayed to condone the delay caused in filing this appeal. In view of the facts stated in assessee's affidavit, we find sufficient cause to condone the delay. Said

Kapildev Dubey, Mayurbhanj vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Baripada, Mayurbhanj

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

ITA 185/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: P.K. Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: S.C. Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 694ASection 69A

days. It is observed that along with the memo of appeal, the assessee has also filed an application along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay and has requested that the delay may be condoned. It is mentioned that the appellant was suffering from heart stroke and acute cardiological problem ... under: Even assuming that the appeal was time barred, we may consider whether the Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay when there was no prayer for such condonation. The relevant provision in that regard is contained in s. 253(5) of the LT. Act, 1961, which provides that

M/S Sant Yogiraj Urban Credit Co-Op Society, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 203/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry& Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Shri D.P. Lohiya, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 250Section 253(5)

case, therefore following question emerge: 2 ITA.No.203/NAG/2025 “Whether the Ld. Commissioner by making superseded exercise examining the merits of case, eventually condoned the delay or not? 3. We observe that identical issue has also been dealt with by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Williamson ... interests of the appellant-assessee inasmuch as the Tribunal having decided not to proceed with the matter on the ground of condonation of delay, cannot unilaterally decide the appeals on the merits, more so when the appellant-assessee was not given proper opportunity to contest the matter in the main

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Kapil Romana, Bathinda

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 926/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

days Assessment year 2018-19 236 days 11 13. The assessee in respect of late cross objections having been filed, filed applications for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit of the assessee concerned. He was under the bonafide belief that since the appropriate relief has already been granted ... thus, it was argued that delay in filing the cross objections be condoned. The Ld. DR argued that the issue regarding the condonation of delay be decided on merits. After going through the contents of the application filed by the assessee and affidavit, the delay in filing the cross objections

Goodearth Infrastructure Development Limited, Patiala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1117/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1117/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vs. The Dcit, Goodearth Infrastructure बनाम Central Circe 1(1), Development Limited, Chandigarh 6458/1, Lahori Gate, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaica9869Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

days in filing of the appeal. The Counsel for the Assessee submitted that an application dt. 3.6.2025 along with an Affidavit for condonation of delay, which is reproduced as under: 1117-Chd-2024 – Goodearth Infrastructure Development Limited, Patiala 2 1117-Chd-2024 – Goodearth Infrastructure Development Limited, Patiala ... have considered the issue brought on record and gone through the contents of the Application which is supported by an Affidavit for condonation of delay and we feel it appropriate to condone the delay because of the nature of issue discussed in the application for condonation of delay

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana vs. Kapil Romana, Bathinda

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 773/CHANDI/2023[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jun 2025

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

days Assessment year 2018-19 236 days 11 13. The assessee in respect of late cross objections having been filed, filed applications for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit of the assessee concerned. He was under the bonafide belief that since the appropriate relief has already been granted ... thus, it was argued that delay in filing the cross objections be condoned. The Ld. DR argued that the issue regarding the condonation of delay be decided on merits. After going through the contents of the application filed by the assessee and affidavit, the delay in filing the cross objections

Sh. Bhaveshkumar Ganshyam Patel, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 951/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Shri Bhaveshkumar Ganshyam Patel Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) 446 Patel Faliya Vs. Vadodara. Moti Khadaki, Tb Sanatorium So Vadodara, Gujarat. Pan : Aunpp 1026 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Nikhita Bhamblani, Ca & Shri Virat Bhavsar, Ar : Ms.Urvashi Mandhan, Sr.Dr. Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: /06/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

craves the right to add to or to alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. Condonation of Delay 5. At the outset, it may be noted that there was a delay of 364 days in filing the present appeal before ... professional advice and, without any further delay, filed the present ITA No.951 /Ahd/2025 5 appeal before us. In support of the prayer for condonation of delay, the learned Authorised Representative placed reliance upon various judicial precedents to contend that in absence of mala fides or deliberate inaction, a liberal view

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 767/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250

CBDT has recognised that there are genuine hardships in delay of filing Form 10B and the same can be condoned, however, for the condonation of delay in filing the return and Audit Report on Form 10B, assessee has to approach the competent authority along with justification for the delay

Gurjeetsingh Jarnail Singh Nahal, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(3), Pune

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

ITA 1222/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1222/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 5Section 69A

Registry has informed that there is delay of 222 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Affidavit for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing the appeal, the contents of which read as follows : “9. That the delay ... 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

The Kolkata Port Trust Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Kolkata vs. Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 725/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.723 - 725/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा /A.Yrs. :2021-2022, 2022-2023 & 2023-2024) The Kolkata Port Trust Vs Cpc, Bengaluru Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Smp Kolkata, 15 Stand Road, Kolkata Gpo, West Bengal Pan No. :Aabat 5305 K (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mandal, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders, Passed By The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Surat, All Dated 23.01.2025, For The Assessment Years 2021-2022, 2022-2023 & 2023-2024, Respectively. 2. All The Three Appeals Of The Assesse Are Barred By 07 Days Each. In This Regard, The Assesse Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein The Sufficient Reasons For Delay In Filing The Above Appeals, Which Are Not Found To Be False. This Contention Of The Assesse Has Not Been Objected By The Ld. Sr. Dr. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 07 Days Each In Filing The Present Appeals & The Appeals Of The Assesse Are Admitted For Hearing. 3. None Represented On Behalf Of The Assesse. Shri Kapil Mandal, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf The Assesse.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 80P

three appeals of the assesse are barred by 07 days each. In this regard, the assesse has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein the sufficient reasons for delay in filing the above appeals, which are not found to be false. This contention ... assesse has not been objected by the ld. Sr. DR. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 07 days each in filing the present appeals and the appeals of the assesse are admitted for hearing. 3. None represented on behalf of the assesse. Shri Kapil Mandal, Sr. DR appeared on behalf

The Kolkata Port Trust Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Kolkata vs. Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 724/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.723 - 725/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा /A.Yrs. :2021-2022, 2022-2023 & 2023-2024) The Kolkata Port Trust Vs Cpc, Bengaluru Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Smp Kolkata, 15 Stand Road, Kolkata Gpo, West Bengal Pan No. :Aabat 5305 K (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mandal, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders, Passed By The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Surat, All Dated 23.01.2025, For The Assessment Years 2021-2022, 2022-2023 & 2023-2024, Respectively. 2. All The Three Appeals Of The Assesse Are Barred By 07 Days Each. In This Regard, The Assesse Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein The Sufficient Reasons For Delay In Filing The Above Appeals, Which Are Not Found To Be False. This Contention Of The Assesse Has Not Been Objected By The Ld. Sr. Dr. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 07 Days Each In Filing The Present Appeals & The Appeals Of The Assesse Are Admitted For Hearing. 3. None Represented On Behalf Of The Assesse. Shri Kapil Mandal, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf The Assesse.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 80P

three appeals of the assesse are barred by 07 days each. In this regard, the assesse has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein the sufficient reasons for delay in filing the above appeals, which are not found to be false. This contention ... assesse has not been objected by the ld. Sr. DR. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 07 days each in filing the present appeals and the appeals of the assesse are admitted for hearing. 3. None represented on behalf of the assesse. Shri Kapil Mandal, Sr. DR appeared on behalf

The Kolkata Port Trust Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Kolkata vs. Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 723/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.723 - 725/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा /A.Yrs. :2021-2022, 2022-2023 & 2023-2024) The Kolkata Port Trust Vs Cpc, Bengaluru Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Smp Kolkata, 15 Stand Road, Kolkata Gpo, West Bengal Pan No. :Aabat 5305 K (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mandal, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders, Passed By The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Surat, All Dated 23.01.2025, For The Assessment Years 2021-2022, 2022-2023 & 2023-2024, Respectively. 2. All The Three Appeals Of The Assesse Are Barred By 07 Days Each. In This Regard, The Assesse Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein The Sufficient Reasons For Delay In Filing The Above Appeals, Which Are Not Found To Be False. This Contention Of The Assesse Has Not Been Objected By The Ld. Sr. Dr. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 07 Days Each In Filing The Present Appeals & The Appeals Of The Assesse Are Admitted For Hearing. 3. None Represented On Behalf Of The Assesse. Shri Kapil Mandal, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf The Assesse.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 80P

three appeals of the assesse are barred by 07 days each. In this regard, the assesse has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein the sufficient reasons for delay in filing the above appeals, which are not found to be false. This contention ... assesse has not been objected by the ld. Sr. DR. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 07 days each in filing the present appeals and the appeals of the assesse are admitted for hearing. 3. None represented on behalf of the assesse. Shri Kapil Mandal, Sr. DR appeared on behalf

Riddhi Seva Kendra, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 370/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrariddhi Seva Kendra, Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru, C/O Subas Agarwal & Ito, Ward-1(1), Exempt, Associates, Advocates, Siddha Kolkata Income Tax Office, Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Vs 10B, Middleton Road, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata - 700071 Kolkata - 700069 (Pan: Aaatr2893Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

pointed out that there is a delay of 83 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condoning the delay as under: 2 Riddhi Seva Kendra A.Y. 2020-21 “1. That your petitioner filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the intimation order ... this reason, the delay occurred in filing the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) examined the case in this regard but did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have

Ampi Foundation, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 365/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraampi Foundation, Deputy Director Of Income Unimark Asian, 16Th Floor, Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru, 52/1, Shakespeare Sarani, (Jurisdictional Assessing Kolkata - 700017 Vs Officer, Ward 1(4), (Pan: Aadta8073A) Exempt, Kolkata, 10, Middleton Row, Kolkata - 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

which was however accepted on 14.02.2023 and the mistake was unintentional and requested the Ld. AO to condone the delay. However, the CPC in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act disallowed the total donation receipts including corpus fund amounting to Rs.9,42,771/- and raised a demand ... instant case is whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee thereby condoning the delay in filing the Form 10B of the Act. The learned Tribunal after going through the facts of the case took note of the latter

Sellappa Gounder Kuppusamy, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 793/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.793/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sellappa Gounder Kuppusamy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 125, Sulliporukkupalaiyam, Ward 2(5), Kilangundal, Mulanur, Tiruppur. Tiruppur 638 106. [Pan:Bbdpk7658F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Muthu Kumar, C.A. ""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 : 16.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Raised 2 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 When The Assessee Has Opted For 2

For Appellant: Shri K. Muthu Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

impugned order. The assessee offered his explanation under Col. No. 14 of Form 35 and the ld. CIT(A) rejected the condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. The ld. AR Shri K. Muthu Kumar, C.A., with regard to the delay in filing appeal before ... burdened with both financial and emotional responsibilities of ensuring medical care for himself and his family. Thus, the ld. AR prayed to condone the delay of 163 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). He relied on the order of this Tribunal in the case of Baskaran

Nanjundapuram Sethupathy Kalidas, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 779/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.779/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nanjundapuram Sethupathy Kalidas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15-A, Annamadam Lane, Non Corporate Ward 1(1), Nanjundapuram, Coimbatore 641 036. Coimbatore. [Pan:Ankpk0170C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar, 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 : 16.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 321 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Along With Medical Reports. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The 2

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 69

year 2013-14. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 321 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons along with medical reports. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated