← 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

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

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

ITA 426/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

Shree Surat South Jari Mandal, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahemdabad

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

ITA 246/SRT/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.246 & 245/Srt/2025 (Assessment Years: 2025-26) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Surat South Jari Mandal, Vs. The Cit(Exemption), B-2271, Gopipura, Parsiwad, Ahmedabad Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aavts8551K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025

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

find that assessee was neither negligent nor deliberate in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay would constitute “sufficient cause” for delay in filing this appeal. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 12. In this

Shree Surat South Jari Mandal, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 245/SRT/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.246 & 245/Srt/2025 (Assessment Years: 2025-26) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Surat South Jari Mandal, Vs. The Cit(Exemption), B-2271, Gopipura, Parsiwad, Ahmedabad Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aavts8551K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025

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

find that assessee was neither negligent nor deliberate in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay would constitute “sufficient cause” for delay in filing this appeal. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 12. In this

Society for Information Technology Development, Bhopal vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 696/IND/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisociety For Information Nfac, बनाम/ Technology Development, Delhi Vs. S-209 Raksha Tower, Huzur, Bhopal

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253

date of “impugned order” is shown as 15.05.2024. Date of service of “impugned order” is shown as 15.05.2024. The assessee has filed a condonation of delay application and desires that this Tribunal should condone the delay in preferring this instant appeal. It is contended that assessee society’s Principal Page ... were caused to assessee society. An affidavit in support of Society’s Director Cum authorized signatory is placed on record in support of condonation of delay. The Ld. DR for Revenue has not opposed the condonation of delay application and so also an affidavit in support of same. After hearing

Income Tax Officer-3(1), Kanpur vs. Shri Arvind Kumar Gupta, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal is held to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 174/LKW/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SH.KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 268A

Jitendra Yadav, ld. counsel for the assessee (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. AR’) who appeared before the Bench on 26.09.2023 opposed the condonation of delay by the Bench on the grounds that the ITAT, Lucknow Bench had refused to admit an appeal filed in similar circumstances with similar timelines ... delay is caused by mala fide or negligence. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Court has held that the worst that can happen by condoning a delay, is that the case will be taken up for hearing on merit and refusing to condone the delay can result in a good matter being

Income Tax Officer, Bodhi Tower vs. Kumar Builders Project Pune Private Limited, Bund Garden

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 199/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 80ISection 80P

CBDT [322 ITR 87] the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held as under: “8. It is well settled that in matters of condonation of delay a highly pedantic approach should be eschewed and a justice oriented approach should be adopted and a party should not be made to suffer ... Section 239 of the said Act. In the present case we find that the Respondents have failed to exercise such powers to condone the delay in filing returns and consequent refund by the Petitioners on irrelevant and extraneous reasons. 10. This Court in the Judgment in the case

Gattu Ravinder, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 213/HYD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 144

Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering ... application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in the appeal. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observation, condone the delay of 57 days involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee before us. 5. Succinctly stated, the A.O. based on information that

Sudhakara Reddy, Thiruvallur vs. DCIT, Ncc-7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 826/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.826/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Sudhakara Reddy, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.61/1, Reddy Street, Income Tax, Panapakkam,, Palavakkam S.O, Non-Corporate Circle-7(1), Tiruvallur, Chennai. Tamil Nadu-602026 [Pan: Amzps3937K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S.Muralidhar, Ca For Shri J.Prabhakar,Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri S.Muralidhar, CA for ShriFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 251(1)

after giving opportunities of being heard to the assesse and to pass a speaking order. We also direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay of 107 days in filing of appeal in this case. He will be at liberty to call for any remand report from ... decision in para 4 above, as the assessee has succeeded on merits and we have remitted the issue to the Ld.CIT(A) for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before him and fresh adjudication, this legal ground of appeal has been left open. Page

Mirifical Careers Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 792/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.792/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2021-22 Mirifical Careers Private Limited, The Income Tax Officer, 135/135A, Palanisamy Towers, Corporate Ward-2, Dharmaraj Layout, Coimbatore Sowripalayam Pirivu, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641 045. [Pan: Aamcm9499E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri K. Muthu Kumar, C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri K. Muthu Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 43B

regarding non-condonation of the delay by the latter. Accordingly, request was made that the Ld.CIT(A) may be directed to condone the delay and do a fresh adjudication of the matter on merits. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the communication by the Revenue were sent ... that no worthwhile purpose is going to be served by Page - 2 - of 3 remitting the matter back to the Ld.CIT(A) for condonation of delay and taking a decision on merits. We have noted that the case of Revenue qua the additions made u/s 143(1)(a) are fully

Annai Trust, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Salem

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

ITA 780/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.780/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Annai Trust, The Income Tax Officer, D.No.25/235, Jinna Street, Exemptions Ward, Kaveripattinam(Viil) (Po), Salem Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu 635 112. [Pan: Aadta6748A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 143(1)(a)

counsel submitted that it had admittedly filed belated return of income and the tax audit report and also that its request for condonation of delay was also rejected by the competent authority from revenue. The Ld.Counsel submitted that its claim of exemption u/s 11 was thus withdrawn ... been denied by the Revenue in view of delayed filing of its return of income and tax audit reports. The request for condonation of delay has also been rejected by the Revenue. No Page - 2 - of 7 valid claim of exemption u/s 11 therefore exists. We have noted that

Rajendran Vijayabaskar, Chennai vs. Assessing Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 516/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: None
Section 139Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

outset, it is noted that there is few days delay in filing of appeal and having gone through the application for condonation of delay, we find that the reasons given in the application are excusable and Rajendran Vijayabaskar :: 2 :: therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal

Prem Prakash Gupta, Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward-6(2)(2), Bangalore

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as not admitted

ITA 53/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

days for the reasons mentioned above. 10. It is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal takes a lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay of 375 days in filing the present appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner Page 5 of 13 of Income-tax (appeals), NFAC ... case of CIT & Another Vs. ISRO Satellite Center, in ITA No. 532 of 2008 and other batch of appeal order dated 28/10/2011 has condoned the delay of 5 years in filing the appeal before the CIT[A], the relevant observation is at para 28 page 72 of the order

New Bombay Merchants Educational Foundation, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, CPC Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed

ITA 2690/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) New Bombay Merchants Educational Acit (E),-2(2), Mumbai Foundation, Vs The Sugar Market Assc. 1St Floor, Central Facility Bldg Fam Market 1, Phase 2, Turbhe Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400703. [Pan No. Aaatn2984J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pradeep Kapasi Ca Revenue By Ms. Sujatha Iyangar, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 18.04.2025 Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.06.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 2(15)Section 234BSection 246A

portal on 27.06.2019. The assessee also filed 2 New Bombay Merchants Educational Foundation application under Rule 17B to CIT(E) on 12.12.2019 for condonation of delay, if any, in uploading Form 10B. Report in Form 10B was also filed with the Assessing Officer/ Central Processing Centre (CPC) at the time ... with return of income. The said report was uploaded digitally on 27.06.2019. The assessee also filed application to CIT(A) on 12.12.2019 for condoning the delay. The ld. AR submits that in a series of decision including the decision of Gujarat High Court Sarvodaya Charitable Trust

Sanvedna Educational and Charitable Turst, Mumbai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Thane

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as granted above

ITA 2609/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2021-22 Sanvedna Educational & Ito, Exemption Ward, Charitable Trust Thane Room No.208,2Nd Floor, C/O Chandu Hansha Dalvi, Vs. House No. 52, Anand Koliwada, Reac, Thane Dativali Village, Diva(East), Mumbai-400602 District Thane, Mumbai- 400612 Pan: Aagts4216G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Prayag Jha Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.02.2025, 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. 2021-22. 2. On Deliberation, The Assessee Has Claimed That There Was A Delay In Filing Of Form No. 10 For Claiming Benefit U/S 11 Of The Act & Therefore The Benefit U/S 11 Of The Act Has Been Denied By Both The Authorities Below.

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 11Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 250

officers such as Pr. Commissioners of Income Tax (Pr. ClT’)/ Commissioners of Income Tax (‘CIT’) to admit and deal with the applications for condonation of delay in filing of Form No. 10-IC or Form No. 10-ID for Assessment Years 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 where there ... CCIT’)/ Chief Commissioners of Income Tax (‘CCIT’)/Directors General of Income Tax (‘DGIT’) to admit and deal with the applications for condonation of delay where there is a delay of more than 365 days while ensuring that the following conditions are satisfied while deciding such applications: The return of income

Vilas Ramchandra Shirke, Mumbai Maharashtra vs. National Faceless Appellate Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 1934/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Tejash Sodha, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 250

short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. At the outset, the reasons stated by the Assessee for condonation of delay of 28 days in filing of this appeal as bonafide, genuine and unintentional, as not refuted by the Ld. DR, the delay is condoned. 3. Coming

Pee Jay Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

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

ITA 1883/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainpee Jay Builders Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit 20, Rajabhadur Mansion, Aakar Bhawan, Mumbai Ambalal Doshi Marg, Fort, Mumbai. Pan/Gir No. Aabcp9397F (Applicant) Respondent)

Section 250Section 271A

delay of 445days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. In this regard Ld. AR has filed an application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the basis of reasons mentioned in the application that all the old staff 2 Pee Jay Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai ... application and requested for dismissal of the same. 4. After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation of delay and considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court

Niraj Shankarlal Bhanushali, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1058/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Davendra Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 250

short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Considering the reasons stated with duly sworn affidavit by the Assessee for condonation of delay in filing of instant appeal, the delay of 79 days is condoned. 3. The Assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 15,36,000/- being exempt

Horizon Dream Homes Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6941/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Mandar Vaidya, Ld. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 37Section 68

refuted the claim of the Assessee. This court has given thoughtful considerations to the contention raised by the Assessee with regard to the condonation of delay duly supported by sworn affidavit of Director of the Assessee’s Company. The reason stated by the Assessee for condonation of delay prima facie

Asa Diamond Jewellery Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 12(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3602/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Asa Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Ito Ward 12(1)(2) 63 Megh Tower, Opp Royal Aayakar Bhavan Challenge Restaurant Film City Vs. M.K. Road Road, Goregaon East Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 063. Pan : Aamca5035A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RaiFor Respondent: None

arguments. Therefore we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte. 2. Assessee had moved an application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. On going through the contents of the said application, we noticed that assessee is a private limited company ... general plea to explain the reasons for delay. However, the said reasons mentioned in the application are not considered as ‘sufficient cause’ in condoning the delay. On going through the entire file we also noticed that no supporting affidavit has been filed by the assessee and moreover, the assessee

Shobha Verma Through Legal Heir Shray Verma, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 651/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shobha Verma, Through Legal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Heirs Shri Shray Verma, Delhi D-246, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi Pin 1100 52 Pan No. Aadpv5674J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Priyansh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

dated 25.12.2019, appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 02.08.2024. 3. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred application for condonation of delay of 93 days and present appeal. 4. Learned Authorised Representative for Appellant/assessee submitted that after death of assessee Smt. Shobha Verma