← 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

Anju Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(5), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 328/JPR/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 147Section 147rSection 271(1)(c)

case and in law, ld. CIT(A) grossly in not admitting the appeal on the ground of non-filing of application for condonation of delay. 3. That On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not verifying ... days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: The humble assessee appellant most respectfully submits as under:- 1. That assessee filed the appeal against the order passed

Mahendra Singh Naruka, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

ITA 205/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR a
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

days in filing both the appeals by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an application dated 11-02-2025 for condonation of delay narrating therein following reasoning:- Ref: Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. PAN: ABUPN1656J, A.Υ. 2015-16 and 2016-17. 1. With ... however, with a view to providing justice and to dispose off the case on merit the Bench adopts the lenient view and accordingly condone the delay, considering the overall facts presented before us. 3.1 As regards the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 204/JPR/2025, the Bench noticed that

Mahendra Singh Naruka, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

ITA 204/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR a
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

days in filing both the appeals by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an application dated 11-02-2025 for condonation of delay narrating therein following reasoning:- Ref: Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. PAN: ABUPN1656J, A.Υ. 2015-16 and 2016-17. 1. With ... however, with a view to providing justice and to dispose off the case on merit the Bench adopts the lenient view and accordingly condone the delay, considering the overall facts presented before us. 3.1 As regards the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 204/JPR/2025, the Bench noticed that

Aravali Buildhomes LLP, Jaipur vs. AO CPC, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1154/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 80Section 80ASection 80I

filing of return. The ground forwarded for late filing of the return was delay in audit. The Court considered the case for condonation of delay as under :- "9. The main issue raised by the assessee in this case is that the delay in audit has led to delay in filing

Fcl Gahu Kamgar Sahkari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Manmad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Malegaon

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

ITA 1067/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1067/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Fcl Gahu Komgar Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Pat Sanstha Maryadit, S Ward-1, Malegaon. New Hall, Food Corporation Of India, Tal Nangaon, Manmad. Maharashtra – 423104. Pan: Aaaaf1271D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.02.2025 For The A.Y.2021-22. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 70Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 81

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay caused in failing an appeal before CIT(A). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned ... justified in rejecting assessee's appeal by denying request to condone the delay and not on the merits on the case. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the issue of disallowance

Govind Goud Dadivela, Mahabubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

ITA 92/HYD/2025[2013-20214]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Jun 2025

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri V. Ravi Kiran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurupreet Singh, Sr.A.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

assessee involves a delay of 54 days. On perusal of the record, it transpires that the assessee has filed an application requesting for condoning the delay involved in filing the present appeal. It is claimed by the assessee that the delay in filing of the appeal had crept ... 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar vs. Dadivela Govind Goud, Mahabubnagar

ITA 1114/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri V. Ravi Kiran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurupreet Singh, Sr.A.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

assessee involves a delay of 54 days. On perusal of the record, it transpires that the assessee has filed an application requesting for condoning the delay involved in filing the present appeal. It is claimed by the assessee that the delay in filing of the appeal had crept ... 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

Nataraja Ravichandran, Tirunelveli vs. ITO Circle 1, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 708/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 708/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 Shri Nataraja Ravichandran, The Income Tax Officer, 26/10, B Aruna Building, Vs. Circle 1, Main Road, Krishnapuram, Tirunelveli. Kadayanallur, Tirunelveli – 627 751. Pan: Alcpr 6144D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pryati Sharma, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT
Section 250

Assessment Year is 2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 8 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay. On perusal of the same, we find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone ... reasonable cause for condoning the same. 4. On perusing the order of Ld.CIT(A), we noted that the assessee had filed application for condonation of delay before the CIT(A) stating the reason that the assessee’s Chartered Accountant’s mother was passed away due to ill health. Therefore

Vijay Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 44(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4036/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI Ms. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2

account of maximum negative cash balance and interest income (supra). 3 3 Before the First Appellate Authority, the appellant had filed application for condonation of delay, application for admission of additional evidence in the shape of bank statement for preceding assessment year i.e. assessment year 2011-12 under Rule ... support of grounds raised challenging the jurisdictional issue and addition of Rs. 10,17,150/- made therein. The First Appellate Authority has condoned the delay in filing of appeal before him, however, neither the Assessing Officer has been allowed any opportunity to examine the evidences nor he himself rejected

Jagdish Prasad, Delhi vs. ACIT-Circle 57(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2387/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Santanu Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

Sarvesh Kumar are time barred by 4 days and 38 days respectively. In response thereof, the Assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal on the grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. In support of this, they filed an affidavit which ... record. Accordingly, they prayed that the delay in filing the appeals be condoned. 3. I have heard the counsels on the issue of condonation of delay. In my considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeals. Therefore, I condone the delay in filing

Dr. Sarvesh Kumar, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 57(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2339/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Santanu Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

Sarvesh Kumar are time barred by 4 days and 38 days respectively. In response thereof, the Assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal on the grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. In support of this, they filed an affidavit which ... record. Accordingly, they prayed that the delay in filing the appeals be condoned. 3. I have heard the counsels on the issue of condonation of delay. In my considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeals. Therefore, I condone the delay in filing

JCIT(in-Situ), Circle-1, Patna vs. Technoculture Building Centre Private Limited, Patna

ITA 41/PAT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna03 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 142(1)Section 145Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

days, for which an application has been filed as under: “We, Technoculture Building Centre Private Limited hereby submit this application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order of CIT(A) order u/s 250 dated 12/12/2024 for A.Y 2020-21 There is delay of 20 days ... interest of justice.” 1.1 Considering the reasons given for condonation of the said delay, we hereby admit this appeal for adjudication after condoning the delay. Since both the appeals have inter-connected issues hence, they are being heard together for simultaneous adjudication. 2. These appeals arise from the order

Integral Urban Co Operative Bank, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-01, Jaipur

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

ITA 283/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kulhari, Addl. CIT, Proxy for -DR
Section 271(1)

year under consideration, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 362 days in appeal for which the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay with the prayer to condone the delay. The relevant submission as made in the application for condonation of delay is as under:- ‘’….The relevant ... delay especially since the appellant is keen to pursue the appeal. It is therefore, requested that the Hon’ble ITAT may condone the delay of 362 days in filing this appeal and hear the appeals on merits. Few Case laws submitted are as under:- 1. Collector, Land Acquisition

Kirti Krishna Trademart Pvt. Ltd., Bharatpur vs. ITO WD 2, Bharatpur

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

ITA 1440/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 253(5)Section 274Section 69A

days in filing the appeal for which the Director of the assessee company has filed an application dated 28-11-2024 for condonation of delay with following prayers. ‘’1. The tax matters of assessee company were previously handled by Chartered Accountant Sunil Mittal, who was entrusted with all taxation ... provisions of Section 253(5) of the ITA, if there is sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal, Hon'ble ITAT may condone such delay It is submitted that the delay was not deliberate. In view of above, it is humbly prayed that delay in filing of appeal

Tarachand Gupta Foundation, Nashik vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 936/PUN/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.935 & 936/Pun/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 5Section 80G(5)

dated 19.07.2023. 2. Registry has informed that there is delay of 562 days in filing the instant appeals before this Tribunal. Affidavit for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing the appeals and the same read as under ... advised that an appeal should be filed against the rejection order passed under section 12AB dated 19 July 2023 with an application for condonation of delay as soon as possible before the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune. 12. I say that I was under a bonafide belief that

Tarachand Gupta Foundation, Nashik vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 935/PUN/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.935 & 936/Pun/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 5Section 80G(5)

dated 19.07.2023. 2. Registry has informed that there is delay of 562 days in filing the instant appeals before this Tribunal. Affidavit for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing the appeals and the same read as under ... advised that an appeal should be filed against the rejection order passed under section 12AB dated 19 July 2023 with an application for condonation of delay as soon as possible before the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune. 12. I say that I was under a bonafide belief that

Smh Medical & Educational Trust, Kanchipuram vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 685/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 685/Chny/2025

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

hereinafter called ‘the Act’). 2. There is a delay of 5 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay. On perusal of the same, we find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay

Emraid Rims Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 674/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 674/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 Emrald Rims Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Now Amalgamated With Vs. Of Income Tax, Emerald Tyre Manufacturers Pvt. Corporate Circle 1(1), Ltd., Chennai. No.3, Krv House, Nineth Lane, Shashtri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. Pan: Aaace 9718N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shris. Velpandiar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pryati Sharma, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2025

For Appellant: ShriS. Velpandiar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT
Section 250

condonation application at the time of filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee has submitted that the grounds for condonation of delay ‘will be submitted later’. However, the assessee had omitted to furnish the reason for delay. The CIT(A) without giving notice, had rejected the appeal ... submissions and perused the material on record. The appeal filed by the assessee has been dismissed by the CIT(A) in limine without condoning the delay of 170 days. Admittedly, the assessee had not filed the condonation petition. The CIT(A) without issuing defect notice to the assessee had dismissed

Thangavel Muthulakshmi, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 669/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 669/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2020-21 Ms. Thangavel Muthulakshmi, The Income Tax Officer, 45, V G Rao Nagar, Vs. Ward 2(4), Tiruppur Road, Tiruppur. Udumalpet, Coimbatore – 642 126. Pan: Auhpm 8048F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik Chordia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 147Section 250

detailed condonation application before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The learned AR further submitted that CIT(A) has referred to the reasons for condonation of delay and the order of AO in some other case and erroneously not condoned the delay. The learned AR had placed on record the Form ... afresh. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) has passed ex-parte Order without condoning the delay of 250 days in filing the appeal before him. The CIT(A) at para 2.7 of the impugned Order had extracted the reason

Paulpandian Uthamaraj Winston, Chennai vs. PCIT, Central Circle-1, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are allowed

ITA 425/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:418 To 421/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Perinba Raja Ramesh, Pcit (Central) No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Vs. Chennai-1 Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Adfpp-5207-J] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:422 To 425/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Paulpandianuthamaraj Pcit (Central) Winston, Vs. Chennai-1 No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpu-5409-L] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 24Section 263Section 263(1)

There was a delay of 257 days in filing the appeal by the above assessees. The Ld.DR stated in the affidavit for condonation of delay that due to fault of previous Auditor of the assessee, order u/s.263 of the Act was not contested before the ITAT. Moreover, he wrongly opined ... still prevail. Therefore, the appeals could not be filed within the stipulated period and hence, the present A.R for the assessee seeks for condonation of delay. Having found the reason stated comes under reasonable cause for the delay, we condone the delay in filing of appeals and admitted the same