“condonation of delay”

Malayalee Association Ranchi, Ranchi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaymalayalee Association, D.C.I.T., C/O- Kairali Bhawan, Sector-2, Dhurwa, Exemption Ward, Vs. Ranchi-834004 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aabtm 6305 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

filing of the return of income, the audit report, Form No. 9 etc. for the impugned assessment year. The assessee had filed for condonation of delay before the ld. CIT(E) and the ld. CIT(E) had granted the assessee the condonation. It was the submission that in the mean ... issues may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication in so far as the assessee has received the necessary condonation of delay. 3. In reply, the learned CIT- DR did not raise any serious objections. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal

The Assocation of Colon and Rectal Surgeons of India, Jalandhar vs. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 474 & 475/Asr/2024 The Association Of Colon & बनाम The Cit Rectal Surgeons Of India, Exemption, 408A, Kapurthala Road, Chandigarh Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aakat9866E अपीलाथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) निर्ााररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sushil Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Vandana Vijay Mohite, Cit Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeals In These Cases Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 21.03.2024, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemptions, Chandigarh.

behalf of the Assessee , 474- 475-Asr-2024 The Association of Colon and Rectal Surgeons of India, Jalandhar 2 making prayer for condonation of delay. The contents of one of the applications along with an Affidavit in ITA No. 474/ASR/2024 is reproduced as under: - 474- 475-Asr-2024 The Association ... delay of 89 days in filing of both the appeals is condoned. 5. The ld. DR did not have any objection for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the appeals is hereby condoned. 6. Since the issues, facts and circumstances involved and submissions of Counsel

The Association of Colon and Rectal Surgeons of India, Jalandhar vs. CIT Exemption, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 474 & 475/Asr/2024 The Association Of Colon & बनाम The Cit Rectal Surgeons Of India, Exemption, 408A, Kapurthala Road, Chandigarh Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aakat9866E अपीलाथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) निर्ााररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sushil Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Vandana Vijay Mohite, Cit Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeals In These Cases Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 21.03.2024, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemptions, Chandigarh.

behalf of the Assessee , 474- 475-Asr-2024 The Association of Colon and Rectal Surgeons of India, Jalandhar 2 making prayer for condonation of delay. The contents of one of the applications along with an Affidavit in ITA No. 474/ASR/2024 is reproduced as under: - 474- 475-Asr-2024 The Association ... delay of 89 days in filing of both the appeals is condoned. 5. The ld. DR did not have any objection for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the appeals is hereby condoned. 6. Since the issues, facts and circumstances involved and submissions of Counsel

Shri Vipulbhai Yogeshkumar Teli, Chalala Village, Dist. Amreli vs. The ITO Ward 3(1) (4) Amreli, Amreli

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Counsel adverted my attention to the affidavit filed in this regard citing reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 134 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel, explained the reasons for delay stating that the hearing ... justice, the delay may be condoned. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue, opposed the prayer of the assessee, for condonation of delay and stated that delay should not be condoned. 3. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. There is a statutory limit prescribed

Rupa Vimal Padaliya, Rajkot vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaarrester /Ita No. 821 /Rit/ 2024 (Fara / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing)

submitted that there was del: ay in filing the appeal for 138 days, before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed the petition for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) and explained t ne sufficient cause for the delay, however, despite of this ... condone the delay and dismiss the appeal of the assessee, without adjudicating the various issues, raised by the assessee, on merit. The id. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the assessee’s appeal, on merit. The Learned Counsel, therefore, prayed before the Bench that the delay may kindly be condoned

Lothada Piplana Padavala Industrial Association, Rajkot vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.239&240/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2023-24) (Hybrid Hearing) Lothada-Piplana-Padavala Vs. The Commissioner Of Industrial Association, Shop No. Income Tax (Exemptions), 114, Silver Complex, Umiya Room No. 609, Floor-6, Industrial Area, Rajkot Kotda Aayakar Bhawan Sangani Road, Rajkot 360021 (Vejalpur), Nr: Sachin Tower, 100 Foot Road, Anandnagar-Prahladnagar Road, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecl0666Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

filed on 19/04/2024. ITA No. 239/Rjt/2024 late by 109 days and ITA No. 240/Rjt/2024 late by 89 days respectively, That the reason for condonation of delay is same. The relevant para of the application is : 2 LOTHADA -PIPLANA-PADAVALA INDUSTRIAL ASSOCATION Para No. 5: “I am a senior citizen ... That the delay was not willful or deliberate and that the appeal documents are Bonafide. The substantial merits of the case justify condonation of delay.” The AR submitted that the assessee is senior citizen less educated and completely unaware about the online system of compliance and completely depend

Lothada-Piplana-Padavala Industrial Association, Rajkot vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad)

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.239&240/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2023-24) (Hybrid Hearing) Lothada-Piplana-Padavala Vs. The Commissioner Of Industrial Association, Shop No. Income Tax (Exemptions), 114, Silver Complex, Umiya Room No. 609, Floor-6, Industrial Area, Rajkot Kotda Aayakar Bhawan Sangani Road, Rajkot 360021 (Vejalpur), Nr: Sachin Tower, 100 Foot Road, Anandnagar-Prahladnagar Road, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecl0666Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

filed on 19/04/2024. ITA No. 239/Rjt/2024 late by 109 days and ITA No. 240/Rjt/2024 late by 89 days respectively, That the reason for condonation of delay is same. The relevant para of the application is : 2 LOTHADA -PIPLANA-PADAVALA INDUSTRIAL ASSOCATION Para No. 5: “I am a senior citizen ... That the delay was not willful or deliberate and that the appeal documents are Bonafide. The substantial merits of the case justify condonation of delay.” The AR submitted that the assessee is senior citizen less educated and completely unaware about the online system of compliance and completely depend

Shri Narendra Dharamdas Gidwani, Anjar Kutch vs. The Addl. CIT, NFAC, New Delhi

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 220/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Narendra Dharamdas Gidwani, The Commissioner Of Income Vs. Plot No. 29, Survey No. 193/1, Maitru Tax(Appeals), Residency Meghpar Borichi, Anjar, National Faceless Appeal Centre Kutch, (Nfac), Delhi, Income Tax Gujarat - 370110 Department, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akmpg6386M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chiranjeev Tandon, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. M. Sinha, Jm:

contact us.” 5. At the outset, we notice that the appeal filed by the assessee is late by 29 days. The assessee filed condonation of delay supported by the Affidavit. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay, relevant para of the affidavit is reproduced as under ... hearing the rival contention of both the parties, we perused the reason for late filing of appeal as submitted in the application for condonation of delay. That we find that there is sufficient cause for filing of the appeal not in time. There is no mistake of the assessee

Astavinayak Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Janephal vs. ITO Ward-1, Khamgaon

In the result, as delay in filing of appeal is not condoned, the appeal is not admitted and is rejected accordingly

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

assessment order for the same assessment year and on the same Appellant. 2. Honorable CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal on technical ground for condonation of delay is bad in law, unethical and against the principles of natural justice. 2 Astavinayak Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit ITA no.158/Nag./2025 ... appeal of the assessee since it was delayed for 607 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority and refused to condone the delay. The learned CIT(A) has elaborately dealt with the issue, the observations of the learned CIT(A) are as under:– “4. Observations &Findings

Purushottam Narayanrao Jadhao, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

challenge the assessment order passed by the learned CIT(A) by way of appeal filed before your Honour with a request for condonation of delay. In view of this, it is prayed that the delay of 245 days may kindly be condoned in order to render the justice ... find sufficient and reasonable cause to condone the delay of 246 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee before us. 4. While going through the material available before us, it appears from the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) that there was also a delay

Suryadevara Chalamaiah, Ntr vs. Joint Commissioner Income Tax, Vijayawada

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17, 18, 19, 20 & 21/Viz/2025 (निर्गारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2017-18) Surya Devara Chalamaiah, V. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nandigama. Vijayawada. Pan: Aixps8483J (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

assessee from presenting the appeal within the 30 days stipulated U/s. 249 of the Act. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee ... Authorized Representative [AR] submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC ought to have considered the explanation of the assessee with respect to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC as the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause ie., ill health

Suryadevara Chalamaiah, Ntr vs. Joint Commissioner Income Tax, Vijayawada

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17, 18, 19, 20 & 21/Viz/2025 (निर्गारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2017-18) Surya Devara Chalamaiah, V. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nandigama. Vijayawada. Pan: Aixps8483J (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

assessee from presenting the appeal within the 30 days stipulated U/s. 249 of the Act. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee ... Authorized Representative [AR] submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC ought to have considered the explanation of the assessee with respect to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC as the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause ie., ill health

Suryadevara Chalamaiah, Ntr vs. Joint Commissioner Income Tax, Vijayawada

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17, 18, 19, 20 & 21/Viz/2025 (निर्गारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2017-18) Surya Devara Chalamaiah, V. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nandigama. Vijayawada. Pan: Aixps8483J (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

assessee from presenting the appeal within the 30 days stipulated U/s. 249 of the Act. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee ... Authorized Representative [AR] submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC ought to have considered the explanation of the assessee with respect to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC as the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause ie., ill health

Suryadevara Chalamaiah, Ntr vs. Joint Commissioner Vijayawada, Krishna

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.17, 18, 19, 20 & 21/Viz/2025 (निर्गारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2017-18) Surya Devara Chalamaiah, V. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nandigama. Vijayawada. Pan: Aixps8483J (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

assessee from presenting the appeal within the 30 days stipulated U/s. 249 of the Act. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee ... Authorized Representative [AR] submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC ought to have considered the explanation of the assessee with respect to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC as the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause ie., ill health

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Eluru vs. The Andhra Sugars Limited, Tanuku

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019 (धनिाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1, Tanuku. Eluru. Pan: Aaact6357Q (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 140/Viz/2019 [आयक अपील सं. से उत्पन्न / Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 380/Viz/2019(A.Y. 2012-13)] M/S. Andhra Sugars Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Tanuku. Income Tax, Circle-1, Pan: Aaact6357Q Eluru. अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यार्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

filing the Revenue’s appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeal, the Revenue has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal along with affidavit wherein it was mentioned that the delay has occurred because no regular incumbent holding the charge ... that there is a sufficient and reasonable cause that prevented the Revenue in filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, we condone the delay of 07 days in filing the Revenue appeal and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that