← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad, Near Holy Cross English School vs. The Nanded Sikhgurudwara Sachkhand Hazur Sahib, Abchalnagar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 809/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 10Section 139Section 143(2)

exemption u/s 10(23C)(v). He further noted that the assessee had filed form 10BB on 30/01/2017. It had also filed application for condonation of delay with CIT(E), Pune on 25/07/2018 which was rejected by CIT(E), Pune vide its order dated 26/12/2018. The Assessing Officer, therefore, added ... section 10(230)(v) under which the trust has placed its claim of exemption. The AO further noted that the application for condonation of delay filed with CIT(E), Pune on 25/07/2018 was rejected by CIT(E), Pune vide its order dated 26/12/2018. Consequently, the surplus

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad, Near Holy Cross English School vs. The Nanded Sikhgurudwara Sachkhand Hazur Sahib, Apchalnagar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 808/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 10Section 139Section 143(2)

exemption u/s 10(23C)(v). He further noted that the assessee had filed form 10BB on 30/01/2017. It had also filed application for condonation of delay with CIT(E), Pune on 25/07/2018 which was rejected by CIT(E), Pune vide its order dated 26/12/2018. The Assessing Officer, therefore, added ... section 10(230)(v) under which the trust has placed its claim of exemption. The AO further noted that the application for condonation of delay filed with CIT(E), Pune on 25/07/2018 was rejected by CIT(E), Pune vide its order dated 26/12/2018. Consequently, the surplus

Suvenjit Sen, Howrah vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 48(3), Kolkata

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 330/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.329 & 330/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Suvenjit Sen……………….………….…………………………..….……….Appellant 3/1, N. C. Sen Lane, Salkia, Howrah-711106. [Pan: Ambps1594G] Vs. Ito, Ward-48(2), Kolkata……………....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 26, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders All Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. First, We Take Up The Issue In Respect Of Ita No.329/Kol/2025 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 170 Days In Filing Both The Present Appeals. The Assessee Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was

Section 144Section 250

outset, the Registry has informed that there are delays of 170 days in filing both the present appeals. The assessee filed applications for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the applications, we find reasonable cause which was I.T.A. Nos.329 & 330/Kol/2025 Assessment Years ... Suvenjit Sen beyond the control of the assessee and the delays were not intentional. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeals and adjudicate the appeals on merits of the case. 3. ITA No.329/Kol/2025 - Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income

Suvenjit Sen, Howrah vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 48(2), Kolkata

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 329/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.329 & 330/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Suvenjit Sen……………….………….…………………………..….……….Appellant 3/1, N. C. Sen Lane, Salkia, Howrah-711106. [Pan: Ambps1594G] Vs. Ito, Ward-48(2), Kolkata……………....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 26, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders All Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. First, We Take Up The Issue In Respect Of Ita No.329/Kol/2025 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 170 Days In Filing Both The Present Appeals. The Assessee Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was

Section 144Section 250

outset, the Registry has informed that there are delays of 170 days in filing both the present appeals. The assessee filed applications for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the applications, we find reasonable cause which was I.T.A. Nos.329 & 330/Kol/2025 Assessment Years ... Suvenjit Sen beyond the control of the assessee and the delays were not intentional. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeals and adjudicate the appeals on merits of the case. 3. ITA No.329/Kol/2025 - Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income

Bma Wealth Creators Academy Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.to., Ward-12(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2580/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2580/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Bma Wealth Creators Academy Pvt. Ltd.,……Appellant 14/1, Paul Mansion, 6, Bishop Lefroy Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan:Aaecb2890G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-12(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Miraz D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Akhil Saxena, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 8, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 26, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250

appeal, due to that there was a delay of 353 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within ... stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 353 days. Hence the delay is condoned. 4. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in shares and derivatives. The assessee filed its return of income

Brigge Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-9(1), Chennai

ITA 492/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Respondent: Smt. Pushpa Hemachand

assessee has filed an Affidavit i.e. by M/s.Brigge Technologies Pvt. Ltd. :: 2 :: Shri Sampath Kumar Jagannathan, Director of the assessee company along with condonation of delay. Perusal of the same reveal that the assessee company was incorporated on 27.01.2015 and has been struck off from the list maintained by ROC/Ministry ... Chartered Accountant who immediately filed appeal before this Tribunal. Thus the delay happened in filing of the appeal and therefore, he prays for condonation of delay stating that it was not deliberate and that assessee doesn’t gain from non-filing of appeal on time. The Ld.DR doesn’t want

Benit & Co. Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1, Madurai

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

ITA 388/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 250

filed an affidavit explaining the cause of M/s. Benit & Co. Electronics Pvt. Ltd. :: 2 :: delay. Having gone through the affidavit filed for condonation of delay, we find that there is reasonable cause for delay and therefore, we are inclined to condone the same and proceed to hear the appeal

The Nedunchalai Nagar Co-Op House Building Society Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, War-1(1), Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 339/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the cause for the delay. After going through the contents of the affidavit and the reason for condonation of delay, we find that there was a sufficient cause for the delay and therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal

Shri Harbadevi Gramdevi Mandir Trust Madh, Madh Malad West vs. CIT Exemptions, Cumballa Hill Mumbai

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

ITA 347/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Chhag, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu (CIT DR)
Section 12ASection 154Section 282

ld.AR has filed a condonation application alongwith an affidavit of Sri Mahesh Balkrishna Patil, Chairman and Trustee of the Mandir Trust requesting for condonation of delay and give one more opportunity for the hearing to regularize the registration of the Trust. It is submitted that the Trust is about ... erroneous to claim that assessee did not furnish the details as required in the application form and hence, it is prayed to condone the delay and admit the appeal, ignoring the technicality of long delay of 779 days as delay would not cause any prejudice to the respondent and urged

Kirankumar Kishorbhai Zankat, Kodinar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 Jnd, Veraval

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

ITA 244/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.244/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 Kirakumar Kishorbhai Zankat Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, , बनाम/ Dr. Kishorkumar Zankat, Jnd Veraval-362 265 Shivam Park Society, Panadar Vs Road, Kodinar-362 720 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagpz 7420 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Divyesh Sodha, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Divyesh Sodha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

Appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14, is barred by limitation by 363 days. The assessee moved a petition for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition for condonation of delay, are reproduced below: ITA No. 244/Rjt/2025 ... further prolonged. 6 In view of the above, the appellant respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits, in the interest of justice” 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel

Ramjibhai Devjibhai Mokariya, Porbandar vs. The ITO Ward-2(4), Porbandar

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

ITA 230/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 May 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(2)(c)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 98 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Learned AR for the assessee, explained the sufficient cause of delay, stating that the order of the CIT(A) was passed on 29.10.2024. Hence ... mistake committed by his tax consultant. I note that this delay is neither intentional nor deliberate, therefore, in the interest of justice, I condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for hearing on merit. 5. On merit, at the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

Rameshbhai Khimjibhai Tank, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(3), Rajkot

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 202/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.202/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

Appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016–17, is barred by limitation by 725 days. The assessee moved a petition for condonation of delay, ITA NO. 202/Rjt/2025 A.Y 16-17 Ramesh K. Tank requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition for condonation ... days had occurred because of mistake of the tax consultant. Apart from the contents and the sufficient cause mentioned in the affidavit for condonation of delay, Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the tax consultant to whom the appeal was assigned has not informed the assessee about

Trikambhai Karshanbhai Padasala, Hemal Village, Taluka Jafrabad, Dist. Amreli vs. The ITO Ward-1 (3) (4), Amreli

In the result, grounds of

ITA 157/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 May 2025AY 2017-18
Section 144Section 250

which may be condoned in the interest of justice. 5. However, Ld. Senior DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of assessee for condonation of delay and stated that assessee has failed to explain sufficient cause, therefore, delay should not be condoned. 6. I have heard both the parties ... justice becomes heavier and casts a duty on me to deliver justice. I note that the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay, was convincing, and the reason would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. Considering the above facts and circumstances

Late Sadil Ali Through Wife Jafri, Nahan vs. ITO Nahan, Nahan

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 581/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Supported By An Affidavit Explaining That The Delay Occurred On Account Of Lack Of Awareness & Communication Difficulties, As The Assessee Is Represented Through The Widow/Legal Heir Of Late Sadiq Ali & The Proceedings Were Conducted Under The Faceless Mechanism.

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 115BSection 147

Katiji [1987 AIR 1353], wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that a liberal view should be taken in matters of condonation of delay where substantial justice is pitted against technical considerations. 5. Accordingly, the delay is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. The common

Late Sadiq Ali Through Wife Jafri, Nahan Sirmour vs. ITO Nahan, Nahan

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 580/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Supported By An Affidavit Explaining That The Delay Occurred On Account Of Lack Of Awareness & Communication Difficulties, As The Assessee Is Represented Through The Widow/Legal Heir Of Late Sadiq Ali & The Proceedings Were Conducted Under The Faceless Mechanism.

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 115BSection 147

Katiji [1987 AIR 1353], wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that a liberal view should be taken in matters of condonation of delay where substantial justice is pitted against technical considerations. 5. Accordingly, the delay is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. The common

Late Sadiq Ali Through Lr Jafri, Vill.Jagatpur Po Majra vs. ITO Nahan, Nahan

In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 579/CHANDI/2024[2012-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2025AY 2012-23

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Supported By An Affidavit Explaining That The Delay Occurred On Account Of Lack Of Awareness & Communication Difficulties, As The Assessee Is Represented Through The Widow/Legal Heir Of Late Sadiq Ali & The Proceedings Were Conducted Under The Faceless Mechanism.

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 115BSection 147

Katiji [1987 AIR 1353], wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that a liberal view should be taken in matters of condonation of delay where substantial justice is pitted against technical considerations. 5. Accordingly, the delay is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. The common

Ramesh Garware Charity Trust, Pune vs. Exemption Ward 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 776/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.776/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ramesh Garware Charitable V The Exemption Ward- Trust, S. 1(1), Pune. P B Box 3, Ramesh Garware Farm, Nda Road, Khadakwasla, Pune – 411023. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaatr6365D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Dalpat Shah – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax[Jcit(A)], Thiruvanantpura Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 14.08.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 11(2)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 234BSection 234CSection 234FSection 250

filing by 220 days when no such notice dated 05.08.2024 (DIN ITBA/APL/F/APL_1/2024- 25/1067287837(1) was received by the Appellant Trust asking reason for condonation in delay of filing of said appeal on 24.11.2020 from the date of receipt of order U/sec 143(1) on 18.03.2020. 1.2. Without Prejudice, the said ... said CIT(A) ignored the submissions filed with paper compilation on 18.07.2024 and erred in issuing notice dated 05.08.2024 asking reason for condonation in delay of filing of said appeal. 1.4. Therefore, the said appeal shall be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication

Laxmidhan Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1428/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation of time by 216 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee for condoning the delay stating as follows: “We like to draw your kind attention to the fact that ... pardoned before your good self for such type of lapses on our part and request your good self to condone the delay beyond sixty days of statutory period and allow us to file the appeal before your honour for which we shall remain ever grateful

President Kodagu Raitha Shikshana Samsthe, Kodagu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Madikeri

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

ITA 462/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

delay of 201 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit along with a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay. It is submitted that the assessee received multiple notices from the office of the ld. Page ... made in the future and no unwarranted adjournments would be sought. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the condonation of delay, contending that the explanation regarding the delay in filing the appeal was not convincing. A prudent person would not mistake an appellate order

Jijau Shaikshanik Va Samajik Sanstha Zadpoli, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 858/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)

cannot be interfered with. 3. Before us ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay in filing of audit report in Form 10B which is still pending and moreover, the delay in filing of the audit report was unintentional ... Samajik Sanstha, Zadpoli filed much prior to date of issuance of intimation and in such a case, first appellate authority should have condone the delay and directed the ld. CPC to consider the audit report. 4. Since assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay in filing of From