← 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, Ernakulam vs. Geo Foundations Structures Pvt Ltd, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 904/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Raghunathan P., Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

days in filing the present appeal. The Revenue filed a petition along with an 3 Geo Foundations Structures Pvt. Ltd. affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the delay was due to the time barring work followed by responsibilities related to Election Duty ... averments made in the condonation petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The learned CIT-DR submits that the respondent assessee had failed to comply with the notices issued

Saramma Thomas Thankachan, Kollam vs. ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 839/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17 Saramma Thomas Thankachan Robin Cottage Nedumpaikulam Ito& Vs. Kundara Po Nfac, Kerala 691 501 Delhi Pan No :Audpt5972D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri N.S. Panicker, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 9.8.2024 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067491706(1) For The Ay 2016- 17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Panicker, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 68

/NFAC. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the reasons cited by the assessee are not found tenable and thus the prayer for condonation of delay filed by the assessee is not admissible. 6. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before ... with medication as the assessee was diagnosed with breast cancer. Further, ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal inspite of medical certificate produced before him and accordingly prayed that one more opportunity may be granted before

The South Indian Bank Limited, Thrissur vs. DCIT, TDS, Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 1061/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Naresh C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 194ASection 201Section 297

that there is a delay of 59 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the appellant could not file the appeal mentioning the assessment year as the portal only ... averments made in the condonation petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) had failed to appreciate that

DCIT, Range-6, Lucknow vs. M/S. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 229/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 14A

noting of registry, this appeal is time barred by 03 days only. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned ... Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned

U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., Lucknow vs. DCIT, Range-VI, Lucknow

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 14A

noting of registry, this appeal is time barred by 03 days only. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned ... Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned

DCIT, Lucknow vs. M/S U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 588/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 14A

noting of registry, this appeal is time barred by 03 days only. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned ... Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned

DCIT, Lucknow vs. M/S U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 587/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 14A

noting of registry, this appeal is time barred by 03 days only. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned ... Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned

DCIT, Lucknow vs. M/S U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 485/LKW/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 14A

noting of registry, this appeal is time barred by 03 days only. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned ... Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned

Eveline International, Ludhiana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Ludhiana

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 942/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.942/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Everline International Dcit Circle-4 G.T.Road Aaykar Bhawan बनाम/ Vs. Ludhiana-141014 Rishi Nagar Ludhiana-141001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-3412-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur [Cit(A)] Dated 09-07-2024 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) On 30-09-2022 Adding Back Profit On Foreign Exchange Rate For Rs.8.87 Lacs As Reported By Tax Auditor In The Tax Audit Report. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Admit The Appeal For Want Of Condonation Of Delay Of 48 Days. The Ld. Ar Stated That The Adjustment Has Happened Due To Incorrect Reporting In Tax Audit

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154

Lacs as reported by Tax Auditor in the Tax Audit Report. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 48 days. The Ld. AR stated that the adjustment has happened due to incorrect reporting in Tax Audit Report which has since been

Dapodi Workshop Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1), Pune

ITA 824/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dapodi Workshop Employees V The Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Society S Ward-8(1), Pune. Limited, Jasampada Building, Dapodi, Pune – 411012. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaad5605M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Arpit Dnyandeo Dambhare – Ca Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 06.12.2024 For Assessment Year 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Appellant crave leave to add, delete, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw all or any one of the above grounds of appeal.” Condonation of Delay : 2. Assessee has filed an Affidavit for condonation of Delay. We have perused the Affidavit and we found that there is a valid reason for delay

Sharad Pandurang Kardile, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(5), Pune

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

ITA 2009/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2009/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Chandan KatariyaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 133ASection 144Section 250Section 5

Registry has informed that there is delay of 241 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing the appeal, which includes lack of education and digital awareness, health issues, late ... have gained anything from delay in filing the appeal. Assessee has referred to various 2 Sharad Pandurang Kardile legal precedents supporting the condonation of delay and placed reliance on the following decisions : 1. Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 2. Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao

Sujala Pipes Private Limited, Nandyal vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kurnool

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

ITA 78/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 69A

vigilant as regards the timely filing of the appeal, but considering the totality of the facts involved in the present case, we herein condone the delay therein involved. Our aforesaid view that a liberal approach is to be adopted while considering the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation ... Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhatisgarh, 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

Sujala Pipes Private Limited, Nandyal vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kurnool

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

ITA 77/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 69A

vigilant as regards the timely filing of the appeal, but considering the totality of the facts involved in the present case, we herein condone the delay therein involved. Our aforesaid view that a liberal approach is to be adopted while considering the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation ... Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhatisgarh, 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

Mahebub Samsuddin Panjwani, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 261/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.261/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Mahebub Samsuddin Vs. Dy.Cit Panjwani, Hyderabad Circle 8(1) Pan:Aiqpp2937D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravi Gupta, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 25/10/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y.2020-21. 2. There Is A Delay Of 49 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Supported By An Affidavit By The Assessee Explaining The Cause Of The Delay.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Gupta, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 144

A.Y.2020-21. 2. There is a delay of 49 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit by the assessee explaining the cause of the delay. Page 1 of 6 ITA No 261 of 2025 Mahebub Samsuddin ... Panjwani 3. We have heard the learned AR and the learned DR on the condonation of delay. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessement proceedings were going on during the Covid Pandemic 2019 and therefore, the assessee could not participate in the assessement proceedings and consequently

Ksk Energy Company Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1273/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

that there was a delay of nine days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with a duly sworn affidavit explaining the reason ITA No.1273/Hyd/2024 2 for the delay. The learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that

Ketan Harshadrai Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 1(2)(5), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5449/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh&Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Ketanharshadrai Mehta Ito,Ward-1(2)(5), 67/2, Baliramganpatmahatre Bldg. Vs Kalyanmohan Plaza, Kongaon, Bhiwandi, Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Maharashtra-421311. Kalyan(W). [Pan No. Aajpm 9528 L Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 68

Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC). 7. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue on the plea of condonation of delay submits that assessee has taken a general plea that order was not served through e-mail provided by assessee. The assessee has not furnished ... have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. Firstly, we are considering the plea of ld. AR of the assessee on condonation of delay. We find that primary submission of ld. AR of the assesse is that while filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) the assessee provided e-mail

Sunil Nagesh Shet, Thane West vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5), Thane

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

ITA 4547/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh&Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Sunil Nageshshet Ito,Ward-3(5), Thane 1/18, Vinayak Bhavan Kolbad Road, Vs B-Wing, 6Th Floor, Near Pratap Cinema Thane (W), Ashar It Park, Road No. 16Z, Maharashtra-400601. Wagle Estate, Thane-West, [Pan No. Aegps 2748 B] Maharashtra-400604. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 132Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148Section 254(1)

assessee fairly submits that there is delay of 72 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The assessee has already filed application for condonation of delay. The ld. AR of the assesse submits that delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reason that assessee ... decision, copy of which is filed on record. 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue, on the plea of condonation of delay submits that Bench may take decision as per law. However, on merit of the case, the ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that

Taurus International Projects Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assessing Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 667/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessing Officer Taurus International Projects Private Limited, Vs. A-63, Nh-8, Mahipalpur, Delhi-110037. Pan-Aacct2665F (Appellant) (Respondent)

delayed before the Ld. CIT(A) by 59 days. The reason being sufficient, therefore, it was prayed before the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. Further, it is seen that despite of issue of five notices, assessee has failed to make any compliance ... Under these circumstances and the interest of justice, we find that the reason given by the assessee for delay has sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). As the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merits

Mata Sita Vedic Kanya Gurukul, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1560/DEL/2025[2025-26]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Astha Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 12A(1)

trustee was suffering from cancer and hence she could not tend to the trust matters. The ld. counsel for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 4. The reasons stated ... counsel for the assessee for delay in filing the appeal seem to be reasonable. Accordingly, we condone the delay. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the ld. CIT(E) has decided the issue without appreciation of facts

Himanshu Bhardwaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(2) Range-11, Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5658/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President)

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139

there is a delay of 100 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, assessee has filed the Application for Condonation of Delay supporting with his Affidavit stating therein that the delay was occurred due to incorrect advise given by his Chartered Accountant that no appeal lies ... sides and perusing the records, I find that reasonable reason has been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeal, hence, I condone the delay in dispute in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Briefly stated, facts are that asssessee filed return of income on 29.12.2021, declaring total