“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

Mukundlal Baheti, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine as barred by limitation

ITA 244/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 May 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Abhinav Pitta, SR-DR

Section 143(3)

seen that there is a delay of 751 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit dated 01.04.2025, explaining the reasons for such delay. The reasons given by the assessee as per the affidavit ... inspire confidence that the assessee was diligently pursuing the matter. The delay is excessive and unexplained for substantial periods. Accordingly, the petition for condonation of delay is rejected. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine as barred by limitation. Order pronounced in the open

Vishwa Utilites Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1162/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 143(3)

order, which was delayed by 2,235 days. ITA No.1162/Hyd/2024 2 3. The Ld. First Appellate Authority, after considering the record, declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as time-barred. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The learned Authorised Representative ... settled principle of law that “every day’s delay” must be explained to the satisfaction of the appellate authority, and condonation of delay is a discretionary relief that requires demonstration of bona fide intent and reasonable cause. In the present case, we are of the view that the assessee

M/S. Prajapati Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(2), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 312/KOL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.312/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Prajapati Commodities Pvt. Ltd.…………………………..….……….Appellant 51, Vivekanda Road, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaecp2927L] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata……………....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None 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 14, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 09.01.2025 Of 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’). 2. At The Time Of Hearing, No One Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Although Notices Were Served From The Registry To The Assessee. We Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Inordinate Delay For Adjudication; Therefore, We Feel It Necessary To Decide This Appeal On The Basis Of Material Available On Record & With The Assistance Of The Ld. Dr.

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 250

delay of 87 days in filing the appeal before him as the assessee failed to file a proper application or petition for condonation of delay along with Form 35. Subsequently, the appeal of the assessee was decided ex parte without looking into merits of the case ... materials available on record, find that the appeal of the assessee was simply dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground of condonation of delay of 87 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) without looking into merits of the case and also the case

Sri Kumawat Samaj Trust, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 627/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.627/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sri Kumawat Samaj Trust, Vs. The Commissioner Of No. 14, 1St Floor, Kumarappa Street, Income Tax (Exemptions), Sevenwells, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan:Aavts7941K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Naresh Singh Rathore, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Under Section 119(2)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Singh Rathore, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 111Section 115VSection 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 139Section 154Section 158BSection 250

I.T.A. No.627/Chny/25 5. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10B on 21.11.2023. The audit reports are to be filed one month before the due date for filing return ... After considering the reasons stated by the assessee for the delay in the condonation petition, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the petition seeking condonation of delay under section 1119(2)(b) of the Act. 6. We note that the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable before the Tribunal

Gnanapragasam Bhaskar, Dindigul vs. ITO, Ncw-1, Dindigul

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

ITA 3069/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3069/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gnanapragasam Bhaskar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 7/22-C, Sahayamatha Colony, Non Corporate Ward 1, T.V.K. Nagar, Chinnalapatti Post, Dindigul. Dindigul 624 301. [Pan:Ahtpb8288M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 246 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: Shri Anandd Babunath, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 69A

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 246 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.3069/Chny/24 we find the reasons stated

Kukdi Devi, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 2926/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kukdi Devi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Door No. 35, West Krishnappa Non Corporate Ward 5(1), Gramani Garden, 3Rd Street, Chennai. Tondiarpet, Chennai 600 081. [Pan:Cchpk5677C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Akshit Jain, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 384 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: Shri Akshit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. CIT

Section 69

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 384 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.2926/Chny/24 we find the reasons stated

Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 19(4), Chennai vs. Parvathy Ayyavu, Chennai

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

ITA 1352/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1352/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Parvathy Ayyavu, 35/17, 11Th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 19(4), Chennai. Chennai 600 083. [Pan:Afgpa2173P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. We Note That This Appeal Was Filed On 07.05.2024 & After Scrutiny; The Registry Fixed The Appeal For Hearing On 29.07.2024. Accordingly, A Notice Dated 12.06.2024 Issued To The Respondent-

For Appellant: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: None

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

I.T.A. No.1352/Chny/24 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 36 days. The Appellant-Revenue filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing the ld. DR and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the Revenue

Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-(Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1267/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Sri N. Suresh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 250Section 253(5)

There is a delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed application for the condonation of delay along with an affidavit in original dated 20.7.2024, which is reproduced below for ease of convenience: Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bangalore Page 3 of 25 Karnataka ... accordingly prayed that since the assessee inadvertently omitted to furnish the documents while filing the appeal on 6.6.2024 and accordingly requested to condone the delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that if the delay

Jaico Publishing House, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1753/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90Section 91

rectified, erred in directing the assessee to file a petition under section 119(2)(b) before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax seeking condonation of delay in revising Form 67 and directing the Assessing Officer to verify and allow the foreign tax credit subject to the decision on the condonation ... seek condonation of the delay in revising Form No. 67 which was filed after order u/s 143(1) was passed and such condonation of delay shall enable the authority to reconsider the FTC claim on merits. 5. Being aggrieved by the above directions of the CIT(A), the assessee

Shri Haresh Education Society, Thane vs. CIT (Exemptions), Pune

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

ITA 1505/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanshri Haresh Education Society Vs. Cit (Exemption) 201, Sunita Apartment, Rahul Park, 322, Ito, Pmt Building, Maharashtra – 401 105 Shankar Seth Road, Pan: Aakas0611A Maharashtra – 411 037 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

justified in rejecting the final registration due to non-compliance by the assessee? 5. The assessee has moved an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal wherein it was stated that the present appeal is filed on 15.02.2025 challenging the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 passed ... appeal was submitted at ITAT Puna portal wherein jurisdiction was Thane within the jurisdiction of ITAT Mumbai. We have considered the grounds of condonation of delay in filing the appeal and found that there was unintentional mistake due to which the delay was occurred and assessee has explained the reasons

Dharm Pal, Rohtak, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-1, Sonipat

ITA 807/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI ITA No.807/Del/2025 BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI

Indresh Arya, Gautambudh Nagar vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Neac

ITA 799/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Netweb Foundation, Faridabad vs. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for

ITA 556/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 556/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2023-24) Netweb Foundation4-F-6, Vs. Cit(Exemption) 4Th Floor, Ozone Centre, Room No. 1, 5Th Floor, C. R. Ssecdtor-12, Faridabad Building, Himalaya Marg, Haryana Sector 17E, Chandigarh Pan:Aaicn2707N Chandigarh

Section 12A

rejected. NetwebFoundation Vs. CIT(E) 2. There is a delay of 160 days in filing the present Appeals. The Assessee filed application for condonation of delay contending that since the order of the Ld. CIT(E) is ex-pate and the order impugned have not been served on the Assessee ... Appeal could not be filed on time. Thus, sought for condoning the delay. For the reason stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the captioned Appeals are condoned. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the orders impugned have been passed ex-parte

Netweb Foundation, Faridabad vs. CIT Exemptions, CIT Exemptions Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for

ITA 512/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2023-24

Section 12A

Shakti Foundation, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 508/DEL/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 508/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2024-25) Shakti Foundation Vs. Cit(Exemption) 68-69, Pkt-9, Sector-25, Delhi Rohini, Delhi Pan:Aanas0963J Appellant Respondent

Section 12A(1)

Shakti Foundation Vs. CIT(E) 2. There is a delay of 28 days in filing the present Appeals. The Assessee filed application for condonation of delay contending that Assessee was not medically fit and was under medical treatment, therefore, the appeal could not be filed on time. For the reason ... stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the captioned Appeals are condoned. 3. None appeared for the Assessee. Considering the issue involved in the present appeal, we deem it fit to decide the Appeal on hearing Ld. Department's Representative and verifying the material

Shakti Foundation, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 507/DEL/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2025-2026

Section 12A(1)

Nasiruddin, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Meerut

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

ITA 1233/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year : 2017-18 Nasiruddin, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), 21/44, Muftivara, Behind Kotwali, Meerut Meerut (Pan: Avnpn6331P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Rohit Agarwal, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Ram Kishan Meena, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.05.2025 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.01.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi On The Following Grounds:- That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & The Facts Of The Case By 1. Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant As Barred By Limitation, Ignoring The Request For Condonation Of Delay Of 50 Days In Filing The Appeal As Made During The Course Of Appeal Proceedings. That The Ld. Cit(A) Be Directed To Decide The Appeal Of The 2. Appellant On Merits. That The Ao & Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case By 3. Charging Income Tax U/S. 115Bbe, Which Was Introduced By Taxation

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ram Kishan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

facts of the case by 1. dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant as barred by limitation, ignoring the request for condonation of delay of 50 days in filing the appeal as made during the course of appeal proceedings. That the Ld. CIT(A) be directed to decide the appeal

Shiva Trading, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(4), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 4291/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Shiva Trading Vs. Ito Flat No. 652, 2Nd Floor, Ward-36(4) Creative Heights, Sector- New Delhi 29, Rohini, New Delhi Pan: Acqfs1603K Appellant Respondent Assessee By Advocate Paritosh Jain Revenue By Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal

Section 139Section 44A

grounds of appeal.” 3. There is a delay of 173 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay contending that the order impugned has been passed filed by the NFAC without giving opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and the Assessee came ... order the Assessee filed the present Appeal, therefore, submitted that the delay in filling the Appeal was not intended. Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal. In support of the application for condonation of delay, an affidavit sworn by RamakantaRaut who is the partner

Sahbir Singh Judge, Panipat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Panipat

ITA 3801/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sahbir Singh Judge Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 1201-A/5 Near Income Tax, Income Tax Pwd Office, Street No. 2 Office, Sector 6, Near Ram Kishan Panipat, Industries Hathwala Road, Haryana Samalkhapanipat, Haryana Pan: Afdpj9948Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By Advocate Manoj Kumar Revenue By Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Karnal, (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 22/04/2022For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 791 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. An Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed

Year 2019-20. 2. The present appeal is filed with a delay of 791 days in filing the present Appeal. An application for condonation of delay has been filed as under:- “The assessee, being unaware of the proceedings, relied entirely on the counsel for handling the case and was under ... Appeal may be condoned for the reasons stated in the application. 4. Per contra the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the reason for condoning the delay stated in the application is not sufficient to condone the inordinate delay of 791 days in filing the Appeal. Therefore, sought for dismissal

Sri Rajani Gold, Vijayawada vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 471/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.471/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Rajani Gold Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada Ward(1) Pan:Acnfs6675E Vijayawada (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25/05/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Da Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 474 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 271D

A.Y.2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 474 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay Page 1 of 10 ITA 471 of 2024 Sri Rajani Gold Vijayawada which is supported by the affidavit of Managing Partner of the assessee firm ... Andhra Pradesh vs. Venkataramana Chuduva & Muramura Merchant & Anr. (159 ITR 59). 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that there is an inordinate delay of 474 days and the assessee has not explained a sufficient cause for such inordinate delay