← 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

Nivedita Bakshi, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Jammu

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 528/ASR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Gunjan, C.A
Section 147Section 250(6)

NFAC, dated 18/03/2022, passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act 61. 2 I.T.A. No. 528/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is filed belatedly by 117 ( One Hundred Seventeen days ). An application for condonation of delay

The Lohia Truck Operator Union, Jalandhar vs. ITO Ward Nakodar, Nakodar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 522/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 250Section 271BSection 4

assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for 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 such

Shri Sanju Gupta, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Jammu

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

ITA 488/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

Assessing Officer, NFAC, passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 30.03.2021. 2 I.T.A. No.488/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is filed 2. belatedly by 147 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation ... appeal may please be admitted to be heard on merits. 3. The ld. DR has no objection, and considering the reasons we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 4. The grounds of appeal contained in form 36 are as follows: “1. That the Assessment Order

Nelson Yona, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Raipur

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

ITA 181/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.181/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nelson Yona Near Shiv Mandir, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 006 Pan: Adbpy8725E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 5Section 68

Nelson Yona Vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Raipur justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner ... Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. That in the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 3. case of Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil

Sushila Rajesh Yadav, Silvassa vs. CIT Appeal, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 1282/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1282/Srt/2024 Sushila Rajesh Yadav

Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)

entries of bank statement." 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 806 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before this Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that she filed appeal against the order u/s 147 r.w.s ... file appeal before ITAT. The appellant submitted that the delay in filing appeal was not due to any malafide intention. She requested to condone the delay in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (Id. Sr. DR) for the revenue opposed the request

Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur vs. Dct, Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 211/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2022-23 Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, 1-59, Mig, Word Bank Barra, Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur Kanpur-208027 Pan:Aaccw7342L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit-1, Kanpur Passed Under Section 119 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 5.12.2024 Refusing To Condone The Delay In Filing The Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2022-23 With The Claimed Refund Of Rs. 10,000/-. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. That Due To Mistake Of Counsel, The Itr For The Ay 2022-23 Could Not Be Filed Of The Assessee Company, Whereas The Certificate Of The Counsel Was Also Filed, But Ignore The Same & Rejected The Petition Moved U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Act, Which Action Of The Pr. Cit Is Contrary To Fact & Be Quashed. 02. That The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit U/S.119 Of The Income Tax Act Reject The Petition For Condonation Of Delay Moved U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Act Is Not Lawful, Bad In Law, Be Quashed. 03. That The Pr. Cit As Well As Cpc Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Arbitrarily Rejecting The Petition Of The Assessee Company To Rectify The Return Of Income, Which Should Ought To Have Done. A.Y. 2022-23 Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd. 04. That The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit U/S 119 Dated 05.12.2024 Is Erroneous, Misconceived, Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law & Be Modified.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 10Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 143Section 144BSection 147Section 153A

against the order of the ld. PCIT-1, Kanpur passed under section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 5.12.2024 refusing to condone the delay in filing the income tax return for the assessment year 2022-23 with the claimed refund of Rs. 10,000/-. The grounds of appeal ... fact and be quashed. 02. THAT the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s.119 of the Income Tax Act reject the petition for condonation of delay moved u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act is not lawful, bad in law, be quashed. 03. THAT the Pr. CIT as well

Universal Realty, Pune, India vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3), Swargate, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 811/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.811/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 147Section 250Section 264

Registry has informed that there is delay of 268 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under : “This is with reference to the Order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") dated ... support of our condonation Petition. In view of the above, we would like to beg your Honour to accept the request of condonation of delay and admit our Appeal in respect of above-mentioned matter. We trust your Honour shall accede to our request and oblige for which we express

Rupesh Mahendra Kankariya, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 1, Ahmednahgar, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 465/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.465/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rupesh Mahendra Kankariya, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Ahmednagar. B Namrata Marbles, Tilak Road, Ahmednagar- 414001. Pan : Arspk8493L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Kimaya Kudva Revenue By Shri Milind Debaje : Date Of Hearing 22.04.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In; I. Concluding That The Appellant'S Request For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal Was Without Any Reasonable Cause, Rejecting The Application & Dismissing The Appeal In Limine. Ii. Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Parte Without Adjudicating The Ground Challenging Levy Of Penalty Of Appeal On Merits.

For Appellant: Miss Kimaya Kudva
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in; i. Concluding that the appellant's request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was without any reasonable cause, rejecting the application and dismissing the appeal in limine. ii. Dismissing the appeal ex-parte without ... After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without admitting the same for adjudication since there was delay in filing of appeal before him about 2 months and 16 days. It is this order

Chaitnya Pratishtan, Ichalkaranji vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemptions), Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

ITA 152/PUN/2025[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

delay of 202 days in filing of both the appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has moved separate condonation applications for condonation of delay. Sworn affidavits have been filed along with the applications stating therein the reason for the said delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted ... circumstances of the case set out above and respectfully following the above decision(s) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we hereby condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the same for adjudication. 3. In ITA No.151/PUN/2025, the assessee has challenged the order

Chaitnya Pratishtan, Ichalkaranji vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemptions), Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA No

ITA 151/PUN/2025[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

delay of 202 days in filing of both the appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has moved separate condonation applications for condonation of delay. Sworn affidavits have been filed along with the applications stating therein the reason for the said delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted ... circumstances of the case set out above and respectfully following the above decision(s) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we hereby condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the same for adjudication. 3. In ITA No.151/PUN/2025, the assessee has challenged the order

Prasanna Sadashiv Shete, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune

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

ITA 2761/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Prasanna Sadashiv Shete Dcit, Circle 10, Pune 56/8, D-Ii, Midc Shete Industries, Vs. Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 Pan: Adbps4462Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 249(3)

grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal and thereby dismissing the appeal and thereby sustaining the various additions made by the Assessing Officer. 3. Facts ... recovery proceeding Due to this reason, the appellant could not file appeal in time. 4.2.1 The appellant has also made a prayer for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. The power to condone the delay in filing of appeal has been conferred on CIT (A) by the provisions

Vardayini Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Pune

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

ITA 1991/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1991/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Vardayini Co-Operative Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Pune. Housing Society Limited, Plot No.96, Vardayini Sangruh Marva, Pashan Sus Road, Pune- 411021. Pan : Aabav3603Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Have Erred In Considering The Gross Total Income Of Rs. 6,32,09,055/- As Assessed Income Of The Appellant, Without Appreciating The Fact That Out Of This Rs. 5,35,00,000/- Is Already Offered For Taxation & Taxes Due Thereon Are Fully Paid

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

However, we also find that CBDT has issued Circular No.13/2023 [F. NO. 173/21/2023-ITA-I] wherein liberty was given to the assessee to pray for condonation of delay in filing of return of income, which reads as under :- “CIRCULAR NO. 13/2023 [F. NO. 173/21/2023-ITA-I], DATED 26-7-2023 Section ... operative societies claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act for various assessment years from AY 2018-19 to AY 2022-23, regarding condonation of delay in furnishing return of income and to treat such returns as 'returns furnished within the due date under sub-section (1) of section

Pyarelal Shaw, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2687/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

Shaw. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 245 days. An affidavit seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “I, Pyarelal Shaw, son of Suraj Shaw, aged about 57 years, by religion Hindu, residing ... knowledge and belief.” Page 2 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 2687/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pyarelal Shaw. 1.2. Considering the affidavit for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within

A.K. Properties Pvt. Ltd., Purba Medinipur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 27(3), Haldia

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

ITA 2498/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2498/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 A.K. Properties Pvt. Limited,………….…………Appellant Vill. Kalikakhali, P.O. + P.S. Math Cahndipur, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur-721659, West Bengal [Pan:Aagca4016P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….…………...Respondent Ward-27(3), Haldia, Income Tax Office, Basudebpur, Talpukur, Khanjanchak, Haldia, Purba Medinipur-721101, W.B. Appearances By: Shri Anand Sen, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri L.N. Dash, Addl. Cit(D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 12, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 29, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 69A

submissions made by the assessee, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal saying that the assessee failed to establish the reasonable cause to condone the delay of 563 days. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT and raised the following issues:- (1) For that ... pragmatic manner. (4) For that in any event and without prejudice the ld. CIT(A), NFAC consequent on filing of appeal along with condonation of delay having issued the notices dated 6th June, 2022 and 25th January, 2024 eliciting response in the matter on merits ought not to have thereafter

Ashok Agencies, Salem vs. ITO, TDS, Salem

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

ITA 474/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.474/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Ashok Agencies, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 70, 71, Chinna Thirupathi Main Road, Tds, Salem. Salem 636 008, Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaffa4962N] [Tan:Chea08311C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 140 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 200ASection 234E

year 2022-23. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 140 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, 2 I.T.A. No.474/Chny/25 we find the reasons stated

Shamimullah, Vellore vs. ITO, Ncw-11(2), Chennai

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

ITA 473/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.473/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shamimullah, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 56, Masuthi Street, Non Corporate Ward 11(2), Near Canara Bank, Arakkonam, Chennai. Vellore 631 001. [Pan:Dalps5068E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Gopalan, Irs (Jcit Retd.) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri G. Gopalan, IRS (JCIT Retd.)For Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 251(2)Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 69A

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 201 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, 2 I.T.A. No.473/Chny/25 we find the reasons stated

Anwar Sulthan Akbar Ali, Tiruvallur vs. ITO, Ncw-19(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 461/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.460 & 461/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anwar Sulthan Akbar Ali, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 5131, Mosque Road, Non Corporate Ward 19(3), Ayapakkam, Tiruvallur 600 077. Chennai. [Pan:Aonpa4265J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 20.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up Appeal In Ita No. 460/Chny/2025 For Adjudication Of Confirmation Of Quantum Addition.

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 69A

I.T.A. Nos.460 & 461/Chny/25 3. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 14 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee ... thus, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the issues afresh on merits after considering the written submissions/ documentary evidences as may be filed by the assessee to substantiate

Anwar Sulthan Akbar Ali, Tiruvallur vs. ITO, Ncw-19(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 460/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.460 & 461/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anwar Sulthan Akbar Ali, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 5131, Mosque Road, Non Corporate Ward 19(3), Ayapakkam, Tiruvallur 600 077. Chennai. [Pan:Aonpa4265J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 20.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up Appeal In Ita No. 460/Chny/2025 For Adjudication Of Confirmation Of Quantum Addition.

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 69A

I.T.A. Nos.460 & 461/Chny/25 3. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 14 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee ... thus, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the issues afresh on merits after considering the written submissions/ documentary evidences as may be filed by the assessee to substantiate

The Dharmapuri Dt. Co-Op Sugar Mills Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

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

ITA 389/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.389/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Dharmapuri Dt. Co-Op. Sugar Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Mills Ltd., No. 1, Thimmana Halli, Ward 1, Hosur Road, Palacode 636 808, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri District, Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaaat3145Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 191 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 80P(2)(a)

year 2013-14. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 191 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee

Chengalvarayan Banuprakash, Okkyam Thoraipakkam vs. Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Addl / JCIT(A), Thane

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

ITA 362/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.362/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chengalvarayan Banuprakash, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 35, 2Nd Floor, 2C, Royal Non Corporate Ward 17(6), Enclave, Annai Indira Nagar, Okkyam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Ajkpb3125C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Thane For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Note That This Appeal Was Filed On 03.02.2025 & After Scrutiny; The Registry Fixed The Appeal For Hearing On 28.04.2025. Accordingly, A Notice Dated 21.03.2025 Issued To The Assessee By Rpad Intimating The Said Date Of Hearing Along With A Defect Memo. We Note That The Assessee Rectified The Defect Notified By The Registry. When The Appeal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 80E

available on record. 3. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 248 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee