← 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

Urmila Kishan, Angul vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

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

ITA 191/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 322 days. An affidavit seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “I URMILA KISHAN, submits that the present appeal has been filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal with ... given an Authorised letter to them. I.T.A. No.: 191/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Urmila Kishan. I humbly request your Ld. Office to kindly condone the delay in filing the ITAT Appeal and kindly admit the same Appeal for which I will be grateful to your kind office forever.” 1.2. Considering

Simhadri Sunitha, Vizakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 114/VIZ/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.114/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Simhadri Sunitha V. Ito – Ward – 4(2) Income Tax Office D.No. 48-8-18, Chikkala Residency Direct Taxes Building Flat No. 1, 4Th Floor, Dwarakanagar Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530016 Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Avtps9852Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 144Section 253Section 273

Authorised Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.AR”], inviting our attention to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 1100 days (includes Covid-19 Pandemic) in filing the appeal before First Appellate Authority stating that “defective appeal of the appellant ... case. Further, Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not appreciate the submissions properly and without giving any reasons for not condoning the delay and except stating that “defective appeal of the appellant is not fit to be admitted” and rejected the condonation petition. Ld.AR submitted that the delay

The P A C S Noh 1002, Pacs Velvadam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5), Vijayawada

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

ITA 199/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.199/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The P.A.C.S Noh 1002 V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(5) Pacs Velvadam, Velvadam Post C.R. Building Mylavaram, Krishna District – 521230 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabap8170G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi passed ... file the appeal by the specified due date i.e. 06-04-2024: 5. I request Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Vishakhapatnam to condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal and oblige for which act of kindness I will be very grateful.” 3. On perusal of the contents

Baiju Lekshmanan, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2017-18 Baiju Lekshmanan Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, V. Alappuzha Marackasseril, Atiramthengu, Alumpeedika Po, Prayar South, Kollam – 690547. Pan : Ambpl8921A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Akhil Shaji, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr Ar. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Registry Has Informed That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 17 Days. An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay For 17 Days Has Been Filed By The Assessee Explaining Reasons For Such Delay. We, After Considering The Application For Condoning The Delay, Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Akhil Shaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 69A

Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 17 days. An application seeking condonation of delay for 17 days has been filed by the assessee explaining reasons for such delay. We, after considering the application for condoning the delay, condone the delay

High Precision Engineering Composites Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 328/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.328/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24) M/S. High Precision Vs. Income Tax Officer Engineering Composites Ward 4 (1) Private Limited, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaech1168F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A Cs Sree Lekha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Sr.Ar Shri V.M. Mahidhar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: C.A CS Sree LekhaFor Respondent: : Sr.AR Shri V.M. Mahidhar
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80J

delayed by 11 days as the due date of filing the date of report was 30/09/2023. The assessee ought to have sought the condonation of delay in filing the audit report in Form 10DA as per the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The learned ... learned DR has relied upon the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) and submitted that the assessee ought to have applied for condonation of delay in filing the audit report in Form 10DA as per the provisions of section

Sri Maheswari Dharmsala, Kolkata vs. CIT, (Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 528/KOL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

barred by limitation by 13 days. An affidavit along with an application I.T.A. No.: 528/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: N.A. Sri Maheswari Dharmsala. seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee. The contents of the condonation petition are as under: “Sri Maheswari Dharmasala Trust is in existence since 11th February ... appeal which was supposed to be filed by 18th February 2025. The Assessee thus request your goodself to be kind enough to condone the delay which was purely unintentional, and for this act of kindness, we shall remain much grateful.” 1.2. Considering the application for condonation of delay

Gobinda Debnath, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Durgapur

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

ITA 251/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddygovinda Debnath, Vs Ito, Ward-1(3), Durgapur 0 Salbagan Road, Benachity Durgapur, Burdwan-713213 Pan No. :Acwpd 9299 G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Shuvo Chakraborty, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri L.N.Dash, Addl.Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2025

For Appellant: Shri Shuvo Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri L.N.Dash, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

find that the appeal of the assesse is filed belatedly by 126 days. In this regard, the assesse has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal. In the said affidavit, the assesse has sworn that the assesse ... assessee. This contention of the assesse is supported with the screenshots of the e-filing portal. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, I condone the delay of 126 days in filing the present appeal. A further perusal of the impugned order states that the assessee was non-compliant before

Akhilesh Singh, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward - 13(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2216/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyakhilesh Singh, Vs Ito, Ward-13(4), Kolkata 222/1B, G.T.Road, Belurmath, Howrah-711202 Pan No. :Akups 0920 P (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Swati Baid, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 08.10.2024 Passed For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. In The Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Agitated That The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.37,28,280/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S.69A Of The Act By Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee On Account Of Delay Without Affording Sufficient Opportunity To The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted Before The Bench That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac U/S. 250 Of The Act Was Without Providing Sufficient Opportunity To The Assessee & As Such The Order Is Bereft Of Natural Justice & Is Liable To Be Set Aside. It Was Also Submitted By The Ld. Counsel That Without Considering The Reasons For Delay Stated By The Assessee The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Dismissed The Appeal On Account Of Delay.

For Appellant: Ms. Swati Baid, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 69A

authorities below and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has given sufficient opportunities but the assessee failed to explain the reasons for condoning the delay. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee and pleaded to uphold the orders of the authorities below. 5. After ... impugned order at para 2, shows that the ld. CIT(A) has categorically mentioned that the assessee could not provide documentary evidence for condonation of delay of 730 days even after repeated opportunities granted to him. During the course of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention

Dharani Sakthivel, Erode vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Erode

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

ITA 751/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:751/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. S. Senthil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 142(1)Section 144

outset, we find that there is a delay of 286 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons. The assessee, being the only daughter submitted an affidavit for the delay stating that the delay is caused due to ill health

Goodwill Wealth Management Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 2(3), Chennai

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

ITA 737/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 737/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Goodwill Wealth Management Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Corporate Ward-2(3), No.73, 1St Floor, Vs. Chennai. Tarana Complex, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. (""थ"/Respondent) [Pan: Aaecg-9766-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Raghav Rajeev Menon, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. Raghav Rajeev Menon, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194HSection 37Section 40

NFAC. 3. The ld.CIT(A), NFAC upheld the order of the AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee as not admitted, without condoning the delay in filing the appeal of 741 days before the first appellate authorities. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, the assessee ... outset, we find that there is a delay of 162 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons. The assessee submitted an affidavit for the delay stating that the delay is caused due to ill health of the director

M/S. Mahendra Kumar Jain, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 447/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:447/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.56/B1, Pantheon Road, Vs. Income Tax, Egmore, Non-Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. Pan: Aanpm 2662B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 264Section 56

delay in filing appeal as against the intimation issued u/s.143(1) of the Act. In support of the assessee’s submission for condonation of delay, he had relied on the judicial pronouncements which are extracted at para 5.2 of the impugned order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) however ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper-book enclosing therein the statement of total

Siddhanta Knwledge Foundation, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 1056/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1056/Chny/2025

For Appellant: Shri K. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 2(15)Section 25Section 80G

Knowledge Foundation :- 2 -: was communicated to the assessee on 26.12.2024 as per Form 36. The director of the assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay stating the following reasons:- “4. I state that the CIT(E) had passed the impugned order on 26.12.2024 and the same was communicated ... passed on 26.12.2024 itself. Hence, the delay occurred in filing the appeal.” When these facts were confronted to ld.CIT-DR, he objected for condoning the delay. We find the cause as reasonable and hence, interest of justice condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised

Jagruti Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward (197)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 372/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Jagruti Co Op Hsg Soc Ito Ward –(197)(6) Ltd. Cpc Bangaluru, L.J. Road Mahim, Vs. 560500. Mumbai-400016. Pan: Aaaat9842L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Pratik Jain, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.11.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Addl/Jcit (A) (In Short Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. In This Case, The Intimation/Order U/S. 143(1) Of The Act Was Issued On Dated 20.05.2015 By The Ito Ward-(197) (6) Mumbai, Whereby The Deduction Claimed By The Assessee U/S. 80(2)(D) Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 7,36,459/- Earned On Its Investment & Saving Bank Account Maintained With Saraswat Co-Operative Bank & The Nkgsb Co-Operative Bank Was Disallowed. The Assessee Against The Said Intimation Dated 20.05.2015 Filed A Rectification Application U/S. 154 Of The Act, However, No Order For Rectification Has Ever Been Passed By The Cpc. The Assessee On Realizing Its 2 M/S. Jagruti Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd. Mistake Challenged The Said Intimation U/S. 143(1) Dated 25.05.2025 By Filing First Appeal On Dated 12.06.2024 But With The Delay Of More Than 9 Years. The Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner By Considering The Peculiar Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ultimately Declined To Entertain The Request For Condonation Of Delay & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine Without Making Any Discussion On Merit Or On Any Other Aspect.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R
Section 14Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(d)

years. The Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner by considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, ultimately declined to entertain the request for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine without making any discussion on merit or on any other aspect. 3. The Assessee being aggrieved ... decided on 30.08.2024 has also dealt with the identical issue and the inordinate delay and ultimately by following the judgement referred to above, condoned the delay of 3685 days and consequently allowed the appeal of the Assessee. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case

Najeeb Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Exem. Ward 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2701/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Najeeb Charitable Trust Exem. Ward2(1) A-28, Eversweet Apartment, Income Tax Appellant J.P.Road, Jogeshwari(West), Vs. Tribunal Building, Mumbai-400053. Pratishtha Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Pan: Aaatn0425G Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dipesh Ruparelia, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/05/2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. At The Very Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 262 Days In Filing Of Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee By Filing An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With Duly Sworn Affidavit Has Contended That Though The Assessee In Response To The Notices Dated 28.02.2024 & 12.04.2024 U/S. 250 Of The Act Issued By The Ld. Commissioner, Filed Its Written Submission, However, The Ld. Commissioner Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Being Heard Decided The Appeal Of The Assessee Vide Impugned Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Dipesh Ruparelia, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R
Section 250

observed that there is a delay of 262 days in filing of instant appeal, on which the Assessee by filing an application for condonation of delay along with duly sworn affidavit has contended that though the Assessee in response to the notices dated ... unintentionally and without any malafide intention and therefore lenient view may be taken and appeal filed by the Assessee may be entertained by condoning the delay. 3. On the contrary, the Ld. DR refuted the claim and conduct of the Assessee by demonstrating the fact from the impugned order that

W G Steel Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(3)(5), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITAs No

ITA 1699/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee () & Miss Padmavathy. S()

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

cause of delay by submitting a duly sworn affidavit dated 28/04/2025. Since the Ld. DR has not raised any objection to the condonation of delay, we hereby condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Both

W G Steel Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(3)(5), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITAs No

ITA 1697/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee () & Miss Padmavathy. S()

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

cause of delay by submitting a duly sworn affidavit dated 28/04/2025. Since the Ld. DR has not raised any objection to the condonation of delay, we hereby condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Both

Sachin Kumar Jain, Sagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Sagar

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

ITA 80/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur11 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Sachin Kumar Jain Ito Ward-3 V. Varni Colony, Katra Ward, Income Tax Office, Civil Sagar, Madhya Pradesh- Lines, Sagar, Madhya 470002. Pradesh-470001. Pan:Aevpj5343Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rahul Bardia, Fca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)

reported by the Registry that the appeal is barred by limitation for 15 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The reason for delay is stated that the assessee was suffering from fever and stomach ailment. Therefore, the appeal could not be filed within the limitation ... Bhattacharjee vs Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others (2013) 12 SCC 649 and considering the reasons stated in the application hereby condone the delay and admit the appeal for decision on merit. 4. Apropos to the grounds of appeal on merits of the case, the Ld. Counsel

Dilip Kumar Ramesh Chandra Agrawal, Chhindwara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Chhindwara

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

ITA 75/JAB/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur11 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2013-14 Dilip Kumar Ramesh Chandra Ito-1 V. Ward No.11, Besides Bharti Income Tax Office, Vidhya Mandir, Narsinghpur Vivekanand Colony, Road, Chhindwara (Mp)- Chhindwara, Madhya 483001. Pradesh-483001. Pan:Aaihd0311F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rahul Bardia, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 68

reported by the Registry that the appeal is barred by limitation for 374 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The reason for delay is stated that Page 2 of 4 Ld. Counsel for the assessee met with accident and got fracture in his legs ... Bhattacharjee vs Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others (2013) 12 SCC 649 and considering the reasons stated in the application have condone the delay. The appeal is admitted for adjudication on merit. 4. Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that

Sushil Kumar, Narsinghpur vs. ITO, Ward, Narsinghpur

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

ITA 20/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Sushil Kumar Ito, Ward Narsinghpur V. Main Road,Gandhi Ward, Income Tax Officer Ward, Kandeli, Narsinghpur, Mp- Narsinghpur, Mp-487001. 487001. Pan:Awwpk7164R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69A

short). 3. The present appeal is barred by limitation for 46 days. The assessee has filed application seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the assessee did not receive order it came only on 14.02.2024. Therefore, it is prayed that the delay may be condoned. Ld. Counsel appearing ... behalf of the assessee prayed for condonation of delay and reiterated the submissions as made in the application seeking condonation of delay. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative contended that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed. Page

Goodwill Founation Charitable Trust, Surat vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Surat

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

ITA 427/SRT/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.427 & 426/Srt/2025 (Assessment Years: 2024-25) (Hybrid Hearing) Goodwill Foundation Charitable Vs. The Cit(Exemption), Trust, Ahmedabad A 102, Sky Heaven Ved Gurukul Road Ved, Surat - 395004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadtg9648P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Harikrishna Gohil, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)Section 80G(5)(iii)

that the delay of 90 and 86 days in filling appeals, was neither intentional nor deliberate. The reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delays would constitute “sufficient cause” for delay in filing these appeals. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit both appeals for hearing. 6. The facts