← 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

Pravinbhai Karshanbhai Rathod, Junagadh vs. ITO, Ward-1, Junagadh

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

ITA 289/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 144Section 250

appeal filed by the assessee, before the Tribunal, is barred by limitation of 167 days. The assessee moved a petition (an affidavit) for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Learned Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons for delay stating that in an appeal filed ... which may be condoned in the interest of justice. 3. 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. 4. I have heard both the parties

M/S Shree Agrawal Coal India Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. A, C.I.T Cent Cir. 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 180/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(d)Section 2(22)(e)

health of the assessee himself and sufficient evidence has been brought to our notice which is placed on record. Application dated 23/03/2016, for condonation of delay enclosing therewith a medical certificate is placed on record. After considering the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative and averments made in the application ... condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that the assessee is prevented in filing the appeal belatedly and we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal is due to reasonable cause. Consequently, we condone the delay of 32 days in filing the present appeal and admit

Ashwini Shrivastava, Bhopal vs. ITO-2(5), Bhopal

In the result “impugned order” is set aside as and by way

ITA 475/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiashwani Shrivastava, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 169 Crystle Ideal City, 2(5), Vs. Awadhpuri, Bhopal Bhopal (Pan: Aemps0026G) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2025

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253

Page 3 of 7 Ashwani Shrivastava ITA No. 475/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2015-16 47 days in preferring the present appeal before this Tribunal and prayed for condonation of delay. It was contended that the “impugned order” is dated 22.01.2024 which was received by the assessee on 12.02.2024. That the appeal ... considered opinion that Page 4 of 7 Ashwani Shrivastava ITA No. 475/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2015-16 delay is required to be condoned and accordingly we condone the delay for which the assessee has shown reasonable cause. Delay condoned. Appeal admitted for hearing. The Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee then

Shri Dinesh Chand Agarwal Legal Heir of Late Keshav Prasad Agarwal, Kanpur vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kanpur

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

ITA 38/LKW/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 May 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 253(3)

been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. 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 ... learned Sr. Departmental I.T.A. No.38/Lkw/2022 Assessment Year:2011-12 2 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

Fatimabai Hajimiya Kokani Pvt Trust., Nashik vs. ITO (Exep) Ward 1, Nashik

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

ITA 2373/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2373/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Mrs. Indira Adakil
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 5

Registry informed that there is delay of 107 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Application for condonation of delay has been filed stating as under : “1. The appellate order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi in case ... technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits by adopting a liberal approach towards ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the delay. The Court considering an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal

Miles Education Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

ITA 153/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Singhania, DR
Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

delay by the appropriate authority of income- tax. It was observed by him that as the assessee company had not enclosed/attached any order condoning the delay in filing the “Form 10-IC” by the appropriate authority, therefore, it was evident that no such order was passed in its case. Accordingly ... reason, that he had remained under a 6 Miles Education Private Limited misconception that the assessee company was obligated to have applied for condonation of delay in filing “Form 10-IC” with the appropriate authority. The Ld.AR submitted that the CBDT in its Circular No.6/2022 (supra), had in unequivocal terms

Om Siddhi Vijay Mandal, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1798/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1798/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :N.A.) Om Siddhi Vijay Mandal 9/162, Khimji Nagji Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W.), Mumbai-400013 V/S. Cit(Exemption), Mumbai बनाम Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaato5189J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Ms. Neha Paranjpe राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. R. A. Dhyani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Renu Jauhri [Α.Μ.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai-/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"] Dated 29.12.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”]. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani
Section 12ASection 250

outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 18 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining that the trustee who is looking after the compliance work of the assessee trust was unwell and hospitalised at the time when

Mulund Samata Co-Op Hsg Soc Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-41(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6432/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Ashutosh Patare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249Section 3Section 5Section 80P(2)(d)

hardship.”. 3. There is a delay of 33 days in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for which petition and affidavit for condonation of delay is placed on record. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal of the same and hearing both sides ... deem it fit to condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay to take up the matter for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from records are that assessee is a co-operative housing

Srikanth Atluri, Vijayawada vs. Income Txa Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.491/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Srikanth Atluri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 30-13/1-18, Durgaagraharam Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpa5568H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 154Section 250Section 90

appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: “The appellant respectfully submits the following for the condonation ofdelay in filing ... fide intent but arose from genuine and unavoidable personal reasons. In light of the above, the Hon'ble Bench is kindly requested to condone the delay of 51 days in filing the appeal and consider the case on itsmerits” 3. On perusal of the contents of the affidavit filed

Divine Kanjiramadathil Ignatious, Kochi vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Trivandrum

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

ITA 945/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice-&

For Appellant: Sri.Shivashanker Panicker, AdvocaateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69C

year is 2016-2017. 2. There is a delay of 33 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay. On perusal of the reasons stated for late filing of this appeal, we are satisfied that there is sufficient cause and no latches ... attributed to the assessee. Hence, ITA No.945/Coch/2024. Divine Kanjiramadathil Ignatious. we condone the delay of 33 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 3. The grounds raised read as follows:- 1. The learned CIT(Appeals) is erred in adopting the wrongly reported property

Bhaskarakaimal Kureeckal Bhavanam Girish, Kottayam vs. ITO, Ward 1, Kottayam

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

ITA 819/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Vishnu Das K, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

Kaduthuruthy, and he also submitted that the cash deposits were made out of sale proceeds of the stamps. However, the CIT(A) without condoning the delay of 345 days, dismissed the appeal in limine as well as on merits. 4. Being aggrieved the appellant is in appeal before ... present appeal. It is submitted that the CIT(A) ought not have refused to condone the delay of 345 days, as the appellant had no knowledge of the order passed by the AO till the receipt of the arrear demand notice dated 30th January, 2023 issued by the AO manually

K.K Builders, Kannur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Calicut.

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

ITA 759/COCH/2023[AY 2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Ved, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 154Section 69C

appeal. 5. At the outset there is a delay in filing the appeal by 168 days. The appellant had filed a petition seeing condonation of delay on the ground that it is under the bona fide belief that the CIT(A) would grant relief based on the decision ... prayed that the delay had occurred on pursuit of alternative remedy. 6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR vehemently opposed condonation of delay. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the present case the order passed

M/S Elias & Co, Ernakulam vs. The ITO Non Corporate Ward 1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 613/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Elias & Co. .......... Appellant Basin Road, Ernakulam, Kochi 682031 [Pan: Aaafe5469M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer Non Corporate Ward - 1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40A

that there is a delay of 146 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 delay had occurred due to the reason that the appellant had pursuing alternate remedy ... 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. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. On a careful perusal

K.K.Builders, Kannur vs. DCIT, Kozhikkode

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

ITA 234/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Ved, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 154Section 69C

appeal. 5. At the outset there is a delay in filing the appeal by 168 days. The appellant had filed a petition seeing condonation of delay on the ground that it is under the bona fide belief that the CIT(A) would grant relief based on the decision ... prayed that the delay had occurred on pursuit of alternative remedy. 6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR vehemently opposed condonation of delay. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the present case the order passed

Brajendra Sharma, Barwani vs. Income Tax Officer, Sendhwa

ITA 762/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253

left it to this Tribunal to take appropriate call according to law. We have heard both sides. We have perused the condonation of delay application and so also affidavit in support thereof. After hearing both sides and taking in to consideration material on record we are of the considered opinion ... that the assessee has shown reasonable and sufficient cause in support of COD of 132 days, accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. Brajendra Sharma ITA No. 762/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2012-13 3.2 Thereafter the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee interalia contended that the “impugned

Unus Abdulgafar Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 655/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

Delay. Ld.AR vehemently pleaded that there was sufficient reason for Delay and ld.CIT(A) should have ITA Nos.652 to 655/PUN/2025 (04 Appeals) [A] condoned the Delay. Ld.AR further pleaded that case may be se- aside to ld.CIT(A). Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order ... Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT [2017] 398 ITR 250 (Bombay) while condoning the delay of 2984 days observed as under : Quote, “ 14. The assessee did not rest here. He supported this application with an affidavit of one Chandrashekhar, son of S.A. Yogeshwar

Unus Abdulgafar Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 654/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

Delay. Ld.AR vehemently pleaded that there was sufficient reason for Delay and ld.CIT(A) should have ITA Nos.652 to 655/PUN/2025 (04 Appeals) [A] condoned the Delay. Ld.AR further pleaded that case may be se- aside to ld.CIT(A). Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order ... Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT [2017] 398 ITR 250 (Bombay) while condoning the delay of 2984 days observed as under : Quote, “ 14. The assessee did not rest here. He supported this application with an affidavit of one Chandrashekhar, son of S.A. Yogeshwar

Unus Abdulgafar Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 653/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

Delay. Ld.AR vehemently pleaded that there was sufficient reason for Delay and ld.CIT(A) should have ITA Nos.652 to 655/PUN/2025 (04 Appeals) [A] condoned the Delay. Ld.AR further pleaded that case may be se- aside to ld.CIT(A). Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order ... Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT [2017] 398 ITR 250 (Bombay) while condoning the delay of 2984 days observed as under : Quote, “ 14. The assessee did not rest here. He supported this application with an affidavit of one Chandrashekhar, son of S.A. Yogeshwar

Unus Abdulgafar Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 652/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

Delay. Ld.AR vehemently pleaded that there was sufficient reason for Delay and ld.CIT(A) should have ITA Nos.652 to 655/PUN/2025 (04 Appeals) [A] condoned the Delay. Ld.AR further pleaded that case may be se- aside to ld.CIT(A). Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order ... Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT [2017] 398 ITR 250 (Bombay) while condoning the delay of 2984 days observed as under : Quote, “ 14. The assessee did not rest here. He supported this application with an affidavit of one Chandrashekhar, son of S.A. Yogeshwar

Gangavarapu Sreenivasulu Naidu, Bengaluru vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nellore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 63/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.63/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Gangavarapu Sreenivasulu Vs. Income Tax Officer Naidu Circle-1 Bengaluru Nellore [Pan :Dalps7755C]

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Singhania, DR
Section 250

explained by the assessee for the delay in filing appeal are reproduced by the Ld.CIT(A), however, the Ld.CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay of 168 days. He has filed the details taken from ITBA platform and submitted that the notices issued by the Assessing Officer ... Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has again opted for Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. 4. On the other hand, Ld.DR has objected to condonation of delay of 168 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). He has submitted that the reasons explained by the assessee are contrary