← 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

Ram Niwas Yadav, Shahpura vs. Income Tax Officer Behror, Behror

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

ITA 275/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 44A

days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: “On behalf of the humble applicant/appellant, it is most humbly submitted as under: 1. That, the instant Application is being filed with ... prayer to condone the delay which has occurred in filing the present Income Tax Appeal challenging the Order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – Income Tax Department (NFAC) 2. That, present appeal against the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 was required to be filed within 60 days

Dynamic Powertech Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle 4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 154Section 250

days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: “Sub: M/s Dynamic Powertech Private Limited - Assessment Year 2023-24 - Application seeking Condonation of delay In the aforesaid context, it is humbly submitted ... DCIT In the circumstances of the matter it is humbly prayed to your goodself to please accept the application/prayer of the condonation of delay which is of 84 days and to please be kind enough to direct the listing of the appeal for disposal on the merits. Your kindness would

Deep Education and Cultural Trust, Vadodara vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 83/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pushpendra Singh Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 115TSection 12A

instant case, we observe that only two notices of hearing were issued to the assessee / applicant trust. Further, in the application for condonation of delay, the assessee trust has submitted that the trust is situated in a remote rural area having poor internet connectivity and further the trustees are semi

Pankajsinh Sabubhai Vaghela, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 430/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Tulsina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 250

outset, we observe that the appeal is time barred by 209 days. The assessee filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay dated 20.02.2025, wherein the assessee stated that the order of CIT(A) under Section 250 of the Act passed on 17.05.2024 which was received by the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Mahesh Mohanbhai Patel(HUF), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1147/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

twice - once by itself and again by CPC. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee also sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which was accepted by the CIT(A) citing reasonable cause due to illness during the COVID-19 pandemic. Before

Atul Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 38/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “DRP”] under section 144C(5) of the Act. The assessment pertains to the Assessment Year (AY) 2017–18. Condonation of Delay 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 86 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal ... assessee has filed an 2 application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit sworn by Shri Gopi Kannan Rengachari Thirukonda, Whole-time Director of the assessee company. The affidavit explains that the delay occurred due to a change in personnel in the tax department. The previous Joint Manager (Taxation

Sangram Punyasathi Foundation, Pune vs. CIT, Pune

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

ITA 504/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.504/Pun/2025

For Appellant: Shri Anand KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12A

Registry has informed that there is delay of 25 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Application for condonation of delay has been filed stating that it is solely on the part of professional looking after the work of tax related matters. 3. After hearing both the sides ... there was ‘reasonable cause’ in not filing the appeal within the 2 Sangram Punyasathi Foundation time limit specified under the Act. We therefore condone the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Though the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal

Shri Laxmi V K S (Vikas) Seva Sanstha Maryadit Basarge Bk, Kolhapur vs. ITO Assessment Unit Itd, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 489/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.489/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Laxmi Vks (Vikas) Vs. Ito, Assessment Unit, Seva Sanstha Maryadi Income Tax Department. Basarge Bk, At Basarge, Tal. Gadhinglaj, Dist. Kolhapur- 416506. Pan : Aakas3603C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Mrs. Indira Adakil
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

since it 3 was not verified by the assessee within the stipulated time. However the assessee submitted the request before CPC for condonation of delay in furnishing ITR V. The assessee also participated in the assessment proceedings and furnished computation of income and reply to the notices issued

M/S. Elite Realcon Pvt. Ltd.(Successor to Solid Information Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 681/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.681/Kol/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) M/S Elite Realcon Private Ltd. Vs Ito, Ward-2(2), Kolkata (Successor To Solid Infracon Private Limited) 16 Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 7Th Floor, Kolkata Pan No. :Aacce 3338 C (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri C. Roy, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi Dated 29.03.2022, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1041881225(1) For The Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. Shri C. Roy, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 404 Days For Which The Assessee Has Filed The Necessary Application For Condonation Of Delay. The Reasons Given In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay Are Found To Be Plausible & The Same Are Accepted & The Delay Of 404 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Disposed Off On Merits. 4. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Company Namely Solid Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Had Merged With Elite Realcon Pvt. Ltd., Vide

For Appellant: Shri C. Roy, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

revenue. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 404 days for which the assessee has filed the necessary application for condonation of delay. The reasons given in the petition for condonation of delay are found to be plausible and the same are accepted and the delay

Avida Educational Trust, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 83/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 156

assessment year 2017-18. 2. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in not allowing the condonation of delay and due to which the issue on merit as well as legal grounds not decided. Page 2 of 7 3. The relevant facts ... stated reason is condoned then considering the Hon’ble Supreme Court order, the appeal filed was within the time limit. The assessee for condonation of delay placed on reliance on various case laws and accordingly contended that judicial authority should take liberal approach in condoning the delay. 8. The assessee

Daivagna Credit Co-Op Society Limited, Davanagere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Davanagere

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive the appeal as prayed for

ITA 478/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P

Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(Appeals), NFAC. The assessee also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the return of income before the CBDT which was forwarded to the CCIT, Bengaluru. The ld. CCIT, Bengaluru-1 condoned the delay in filing

Alok Kumar Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 439/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Balaji V., CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 246A

ADDL/JCIT(A) himself in the subsequent paragraph. Ground No. 3: Appellant had approached the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) in an appeal and not for condonation of delay in filing of Form 67 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) erred in stating ... Order that the Appellant needs to file an application before the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for condoning the delay in filing of Form 67. It is prayed that the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) should have appreciated that the Appellant had approached the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) in an appeal under

Ramel Ajit Singh, Navi Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department

In the result, the ground of appeal

ITA 175/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Blems. Padmavathy S, Hon’Ble(Physical Hearing) Ramel Ajit Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward No.28(2)(1), Building No. A6, 3Rd Floor Vashi, Mumbai. Swagat Chs,Plot No. 14 Vs Nerul (W),Navi Mumbai-400706 Maharashtra

Section 139Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 254(1)

before Tribunal was filed on 09.01.2025, thus there is delay of two year and thirty days. The assessee has already filed application for condonation of delay in the form of affidavit. The ld AR of the assessee submits that delay in filing appeal is neither intentional or deliberate. The assessee ... other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Sr.DR) for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. Against the plea of condonation of delay, the ld Sr DR for the revenue submits that the assessee is relying on self-serving story. The delay in filing appeal is inordinate

Harishchandra Shreepat Bhane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1607/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainharishchandra Shreepat Vs. Ito – 3(4) Bhane Niwas, Jitendra Wadi Kalyan At Adivli Goan, Post Dwarli Goan, Ambernath, Thene Dist. Pan/Gir No. Arfpb7179 (Applicant) Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mahaveer Jain Revenue By Shri Avinash Karpe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 30.08.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Very Outset I Noticed That There Is A Delay Of 493 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee . In This Regard Ld. Ar Has Filed An Application For Seeking

Section 250

filing the present appeal by the assessee . In this regard Ld. AR has filed an application for seeking 2 Harishchandra Shreepat, Mumbai condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the basis of reasons mentioned in the application. 3. On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained ... application and requested for dismissal of the same. 4. After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation of delay and considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court

Saroj Mahendrakumar Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 25(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1605/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainsaroj Mahendra Kumar Vs. Ito – 25(3)(4) Agarwal Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, 5/A, Pravin Bldg, Sundervan Bandra East, Mumbai – Chs, S.V. Road, Vile Parle 400051. (W), Mumbai – 400056. Pan/Gir No. Aabpa0184A (Applicant) Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rakesh Joshi Revenue By Shri Avinash Karpe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 09.01.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Very Outset I Noticed That There Is A Delay Of 340 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee . In This Regard Ld. Ar Has Filed An Application For Seeking

Section 250

present appeal by the assessee . In this regard Ld. AR has filed an application for seeking 2 Saroj Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, Mumbai condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the basis of reasons mentioned in the application. 3. On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained ... application and requested for dismissal of the same. 4. After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation of delay and considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court

Bahuuddeshaiya Nagla Imarti Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Nagla Imarti, Roorkeeq vs. Assessment Unit, Nafac, National Faceless Assessment Unit, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 119/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Bahuuddeshaiya Nagla Imarti Kisan Additional Joint Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Vs. Deputy Assistant Village Nagla Imarti, Roorkee, Commissioner Of Income Tax, District Haridwar, Uttarakhand. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessing Officer, Income Tax Office Building, 16, Civil Lines, Roorkee, Haridwar, Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aaban2705P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Bahuuddeshaiya Nagla Imarti Kisan Assessment Unit, Nfac, Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Vs. National Faceless Assessment Unit, Village Nagla Imarti, Roorkee, Income Tax Office Building, District Haridwar, Uttarakhand. 16 Civil Lines, Roorkee, Haridwar, Uttarakhand. Pan No. Aaban2705P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80P

assessee. The assessee may explain the delay if any in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) by filing the petition for condonation of delay. With these observations these two appeals are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for deciding afresh. 3. In the result, appeals

Bahuuddeshaiya Nagla Imarti Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Nagla Imarti, Roorkee vs. Additional Jointdeputyassistant Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessing Officer

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 118/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Bahuuddeshaiya Nagla Imarti Kisan Additional Joint Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Vs. Deputy Assistant Village Nagla Imarti, Roorkee, Commissioner Of Income Tax, District Haridwar, Uttarakhand. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessing Officer, Income Tax Office Building, 16, Civil Lines, Roorkee, Haridwar, Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aaban2705P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Bahuuddeshaiya Nagla Imarti Kisan Assessment Unit, Nfac, Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Vs. National Faceless Assessment Unit, Village Nagla Imarti, Roorkee, Income Tax Office Building, District Haridwar, Uttarakhand. 16 Civil Lines, Roorkee, Haridwar, Uttarakhand. Pan No. Aaban2705P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80P

assessee. The assessee may explain the delay if any in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) by filing the petition for condonation of delay. With these observations these two appeals are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for deciding afresh. 3. In the result, appeals

Surya Realcon Private Limited, Saraidhela, Dhanbad vs. DCIT, Aayakar Bhawan, Dhanbad

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5/RAN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 801Section 801B

28/07/2023, however, these appeals are filed on Surya Realcon P Ltd. Vs DCIT 09/01/2024. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay in the form of affidavit mentioning the fact that one of the Director of assessee company namely Sumit Kumar Singh was continuous ill from 18/09/2023 to 08/12/2023 ... assessee for ailment of director of the company. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties on the plea of condonation of delay, we find that the impugned order was passed on 28/07/2023, however, the present appeals are filed on 09/01/2024, the registry has calculated delay

Surya Realcon Private Limited, Saraidhela, Dhanbad vs. DCIT, Aayakar Bhawan, Dhanbad

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 801Section 801B

28/07/2023, however, these appeals are filed on Surya Realcon P Ltd. Vs DCIT 09/01/2024. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay in the form of affidavit mentioning the fact that one of the Director of assessee company namely Sumit Kumar Singh was continuous ill from 18/09/2023 to 08/12/2023 ... assessee for ailment of director of the company. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties on the plea of condonation of delay, we find that the impugned order was passed on 28/07/2023, however, the present appeals are filed on 09/01/2024, the registry has calculated delay

Sanjeev Kumar Bhothra, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 96/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.96/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sanjeev Kumar Bothra C/O. Bluescope Mineral Co. Lg-1, Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, Near Shastri Chouk, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Adepb0219R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 5

assessee for causing such delay. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the matter may be taken up for hearing on merits after condoning the delay. In so far the delay is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil ... 26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025, had observed that a justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income