← 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

Bethany Navajeevan Province, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 661/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.P.V.Chacko, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 12A

which the learned Counsel for the assessee has drawn attention to the Bench towards an affidavit filed in support of the prayer for condonation of delay. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce the contention of the assessee hereunder:- 2 ITA No.661-657/Coch/2023. Bethany Navajeevan Province. “The appellant had entrusted ... last week of the prescribed time limit i.e., on 14.09.2023.” 3. The learned DR strongly opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. 4. After considering the rival submissions, perusal of the the reasons given by the assessee with respect to the delay in the filing of appeal

Bethany Navajeevan Province, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Trivandrum

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 657/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.P.V.Chacko, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 12A

which the learned Counsel for the assessee has drawn attention to the Bench towards an affidavit filed in support of the prayer for condonation of delay. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce the contention of the assessee hereunder:- 2 ITA No.661-657/Coch/2023. Bethany Navajeevan Province. “The appellant had entrusted ... last week of the prescribed time limit i.e., on 14.09.2023.” 3. The learned DR strongly opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. 4. After considering the rival submissions, perusal of the the reasons given by the assessee with respect to the delay in the filing of appeal

Gem Tech Solutions P Ltd, Trivandrum vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 38/COCH/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Govind G.Nair,AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 148

filing these appeals. 2 ITA No.38/Coch/2023 & Ors. Gem Tech Solutions Private Limited. 3. The learned DR opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. 4. After considering the application for condonation of delay, we condone the delay of 48 days and proceed to decide these appeals

M/S Shwas Homes Pvt Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi

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

ITA 250/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

There is a delay of 133 days in the present appeal, for which the assessee has filed one application for condonation of delay explaining that the Director of the assessee-company, who was looking after the tax matters, was suffering from severe back pain and other deceases. 2 ITA No.250/Coch/2023 ... Shwas Homes Private Limited. 3. The learned DR opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. 4. After considering the rival submissions, we hereby condone the small delay of 133 days considering the reasons as specified in the duly sworn affidavit and proceed to decide the matter

Dd Puri Foundation, Patiala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Patiala

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

ITA 68/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.68/Chd/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 बनाम D.D.Puri Foundation, The Ito, Amar Ashram, Lower Mall, Ward 3, Patiala, Punjab. Aayakar Bhawan, Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No. Aadtd4587C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) िनधा""रतीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal,C.A. राज"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh.Vivek Vardhan,Addl. Cit.Sr. Dr. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-05-2025 उदघोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30-05-2025 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12-06-2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi[Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved From The Dismissal Of The Appeal By The Ld. Cit(A) Holding The Same As Barred By Limitation. There Is A Delay Of 499 Days In Filing The Present Appeal

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal,C.AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan,Addl. CIT.Sr. Dr
Section 143(1)

delay of 499 days in filing the present appeal 68-Chd-2025 DD Puri Foundation, Patiala. 2 A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer ( C.P.C.) while processing the return ... before this Tribunal as well as before CIT(A) was not intentional rather, was due to the circumstances as narrated above. I, therefore, condone the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in my view that the interest

The Buzurag Co-Op. Agriservices Society, Jagraon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Jagraon

ITA 39/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.39/Chd/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम The Buzurag Co-Op. The Ito, Agroservices Society, Ward-2, Bururag, Birk, Tehsil Jagraon. Jagraon, District Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aabat-7981-P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( Physicalhearing ) िनधा""रतीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Ms Muskan Garg, Ca राज"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 उदघोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30-05-2025 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04-12-2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi[Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Of Rs. 9,24,070/- On Account Of Cash Deposit In The Bank

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA and Ms Muskan Garg, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

account treated as deposit from unexplained sources. The appeal of the assessee is time barred by 313 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been pleaded that e-mail address at which notices have been served by CIT(A), was of the earlier

Urmilaben H Dave Disc Family Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 327/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 326, 327 & 328/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 154

Dave Disc Family Trust, A.Y. 2020-21 to 2023-24 erred in holding that appeal was filed late and therefore, he did not condone alleged delay. It is submitted that appeal was filed in time. Appeal was filed on 29/05/2024 against rejection of our grievance on 23/04/2024 and received ... case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that appeal was filed late and therefore, he did not condone alleged delay. It is submitted that appeal was filed in time. Appeal was filed on 29/05/2024 against rejection of our grievance on 23/04/2024 and received

Urmilaben H Dave Disc Family Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 326/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 326, 327 & 328/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 154

Dave Disc Family Trust, A.Y. 2020-21 to 2023-24 erred in holding that appeal was filed late and therefore, he did not condone alleged delay. It is submitted that appeal was filed in time. Appeal was filed on 29/05/2024 against rejection of our grievance on 23/04/2024 and received ... case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that appeal was filed late and therefore, he did not condone alleged delay. It is submitted that appeal was filed in time. Appeal was filed on 29/05/2024 against rejection of our grievance on 23/04/2024 and received

Shreenath Mhaskoba Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-5, Pune

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

ITA 305/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.305/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shreenath Mhaskoba Sakhar Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. Karkhana Ltd., Survey No.12/2, 2Nd Floor, Meghdoot Building, Behind Bharat Petroleum Pump, Hadpasar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aahcs3018G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.D. Bhide Revenue By : Shri A. D. Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Being Aggrieved By An Order Passed U/Sec.250 By The Ld. Cit(A)- Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred For Short As The Ld. Cit(A)) Your

For Appellant: Shri B.D. BhideFor Respondent: Shri A. D. Kulkarni
Section 116Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 438Section 43BSection 80Section 80I

advised to file an appeal as against the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, a liberal approach may be taken for condonation of delay since assessee’s application for rectification of the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act has been filed within time and same

Trident Coatings Pvt.Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 Trident Coatings Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.1/590, Gst Road, Income Tax, Vandalur, Corporate Circle-3(1), Tamil Nadu-600 048.. Chennai [Pan: Aacct3000A]

For Appellant: S/Shri S.Sridhar & G.Tarun AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri N.Rajakumar, Addl.CIT
Section 40

conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR submitted that in the event of condonation of delay, cost be imposed upon the assessee for wasting the precious time of the court. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate

Achakalira Monappa Uthaiah, Kodagu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 477/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 139Section 234Section 271ASection 69A

circumstances of the case. Page 2 of 8 ITA Nos. 476 & 477/Bang/2025 2. The learned CIT[A] in not justified in refusing to condone the delay of 343 days in filing the appeal without appreciating that the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause as explained in the petition for condonation ... circumstances of the case. Page 3 of 8 ITA Nos. 476 & 477/Bang/2025 2. The learned CIT[A] in not justified in refusing to condone the delay of 148 days in filing the appeal without appreciating that the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause as explained in the petition for condonation

Achakalira Monappa Uthaiah, Kodagu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 476/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 139Section 234Section 271ASection 69A

circumstances of the case. Page 2 of 8 ITA Nos. 476 & 477/Bang/2025 2. The learned CIT[A] in not justified in refusing to condone the delay of 343 days in filing the appeal without appreciating that the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause as explained in the petition for condonation ... circumstances of the case. Page 3 of 8 ITA Nos. 476 & 477/Bang/2025 2. The learned CIT[A] in not justified in refusing to condone the delay of 148 days in filing the appeal without appreciating that the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause as explained in the petition for condonation

The Mumbai Dock Labour Board Emp Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed is allowed statistical purpose

ITA 924/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh&Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) The Mumbai Dock Labour Board Emp- Ito, Ward-25(2)(1), Mumbai Co-Operative Credit Society Limited Vs 1, Shramik Bhavan, P.D. Mello Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-400001. [Pan No. Aabat8242 M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has been harsh in not considering the valid reasons and justification given by the Appellant for condonation of delay, for e-fling the Appeal. And has dismissed the Appeal without going into the Merits of the Case. 2. The Honourable Commissioner of Income ... assessee submits that even first appeal of assessee was dismissed by ld. CIT(A) in limine by not condoning the delay in filing appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that assessing officer disallowed the deduction under section 80P(2)(a) and 80P(2)(d). The assessee

Swaraj Seva Waghmode Pratisathan, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1782/MUM/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Suryadev Yadav, Ld. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, Ld. D.R
Section 80G

prescribed in para no.11 of Form 36, “whether there is a delay in filing of appeal (if yes), please attach application seeking condonation of delay”, the Assessee has mentioned “NO”. Thus, in the absence of any supportive application for condonation of delay and/or reason, the instant appeal is liable

Clifford Dominic Colaco, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Natioanal Faceless Assessment Unit

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

ITA 1111/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1111/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2019-20) Clifford Dominic Colaco V/S. Assessment Unit B 521, Ganesh Darshan, बिधम Umarkhade Road, Chinch Bunder, Maharashtra- 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aazpc8794L Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Mr. Chanchal GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

outset, it is noticed that the appeal is filed after a delay of 49 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, along with an affidavit explaining the circumstances resulting in the delay. After perusal of the same, we are of the view that there

ITO-15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lakhani Industries Ltd, Thane

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

ITA 6597/MUM/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6597/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Ito-15(2)(1), Mumbai V/S. Lakhani Industries Ltd. Room No. 204, Second बिधम Gat Number-56, Thane- Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Belapur Road, Kalwa, Churchgate, Mumbai- Thane-400605 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacl1625M Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye
Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 250Section 53

days. Ld. DR has requested for condonation of the delay in view of the petition filed by the department. Vide petition for condonation of delay, it has been explained that due to the transfer of jurisdiction and subsequent transfer of the PAN, along with a record, delay of 170 days ... prayed that the delay may be condoned as it was purely unintentional. 4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we hereby condone the delay in the filing of the appeal. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring nil income

Parradiso Arredamento Italia Private Limited, Ashok Vihar Delhi vs. Ward 21(4), Delhi

Appeal is disposed of by remitting this issue to the file of the Ld

ITA 4778/DEL/2024[A.Y.2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royparradiso Arredamento Vs. Ward 21(4)

For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr

MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal is barred by limitation for 186 days in support of which an application for condonation of delay has been preferred. The reason for delay in preferring the appeal has been narrated by the assessee contending that the representative who was handling the case ... filed in time. The crux of the submission as made by the Ld. AR which is also reflecting in the application for condonation of delay which seems to be genuine and therefore, having regard to this particular aspect of the matter, we condone the delay in preferring the appeal before

Mohit Sukhija, New Delhi vs. Nfa, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4661/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalmohit Sukhija, Nfa, 7D, Pocket A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi New Delhi-110018 Vs. Pan: Andps5089H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil Chopra, Ca Department By Sh.Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”], Dated 29.08.2023 In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10164171 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 343 Days. For The Delay, Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Wherein It Is Stated That Assessee Was Out Of Country When The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Was Passed & Served Through E-Filing Portal. Therefore, He Was Not Aware About The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) & The Appeal Could Not Be Filed In Time. He Also Filed The Copy Of The Passport Having Visa & Details Of Travelling Outside India, In Support Of The Claim That He Was Out Of India During The Period When The Order Was Served Upon Him. He Further Stated That As Soon He Returned To India & Came To Know About The Order Of Ld. Cit (A), Immediately He Filed The Appeal & Therefore, Prayed For The Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

Year 2017-18. 2. This appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 343 days. For the delay, assessee filed an application for condonation of delay wherein it is stated that assessee was out of country when the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was passed and served through ... India and came to know about the order of ld. CIT (A), immediately he filed the appeal and therefore, prayed for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. After considering the application filed by the assessee and the reason stated therein, we find that the assessee has sufficient

Baldev Singh & Sons, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 43(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3103/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.3103/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Baldev Singh & Sons Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 14-A, Najafgarh Road, Income Tax, Circle-43(1), New Delhi Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Road Pan: Aaahb4937M New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. G. S. Kohli, Ca Respondent By Sh. Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2023 Of The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [Addl. Cit(A)]. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Learned Cit(Appeal) Had Failed To Appreciate The Written Submission & The Documents Filed Before Him & Thus The Justice Had Not Been Given To The Humble Appellant.

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 80I

other case, if the mistake was detected at a later stage i.e. beyond due date, the appellant could have sought condonation of delay from the appropriate authority. 4.11. Further, the appellant signs and verifies the return before filing which he has done on 11.01.2022. Therefore, the appellant cannot be allowed

Shri Arjun Amla, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 249/ASR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 250Section 4

made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for I.T.A. No.249/Asr/2025 3 Assessment Year: 2016-17 condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shall place