“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

Big Boss Foods Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan vs. ACIT, Cir. 1, Burdwan

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

ITA 399/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Bhide, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR

appeal i.e. ITA No.399/Kol/2024 has been filed by the assessee belatedly by 10 days. Though the assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay, however, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and since the ld. Sr. DR did not raise any serious objection to condone ... delay, we condone the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal by the assessee and the appeal is heard and disposed off along with other connected appeals. 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that in all the three appeals the ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order

Monish Ranjan Dasgupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 61(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2447/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

Dasgupta. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 65 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “The assessee is a non-resident and does not have regular place of residence ... irreparable loss and prejudice whereas in case the delay is condoned, no public policy will be prejudiced.” 1.2. On considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant

Tara Pada Kundu, Riverside Road vs. Assessing Officer, Asansol

ITA 2423/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2018-19 Tara Pada Kundu Assessing Officer, Income Riverside Road, Burnpur, Dist. Tax Depart, Asansol Paschim Bardhaman-713325, Vs. West Bengal. (Pan: Anupk4310J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250

Registry has apprised that the appeal of the assessee is time barred by 47 days and an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been placed on record. After considering the averments made in the said affidavit, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal after hearing

Presidency Merchants Private Limited, Kolkata, West Bengal vs. Office of Income Tax Officer, Kolkata, West Bengal

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

ITA 2186/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2186/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-2010) Presidency Merchants Pvt Ltd Vs Ito Ward-9(3), Kolkata No.101, India Exchange Place Dalhousie, Writers Building, Kolkata Pan No. :Aaecp 6904 B (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.03.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062704762(1), For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Assessee Delayed By 160 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein Sufficient & Plausible Reasons For Delay & The Reasons Are Not Found To Be False. Accordingly, The Delay Of 160 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Hereby Condoned & The Appeal Is Disposed Off Accordingly.

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 263

appeal of the assessee delayed by 160 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient and plausible reasons for delay and the reasons are not found to be false. Accordingly, the delay of 160 days in filing

Canning Mahila Co-Operppative Credit Society Ltd, Canning vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolkata

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

ITA 2033/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2033/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Canning Mahila Cooperative Vs Ito, Ward-26(4), Kolkata Credit Society Limited, Cinema Road, Canning Town Canning Sought 24 Parganas West Bengal Pan No. :Aacac 2720 L (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Swagata Ghosh Das, Ex- Chairman Of The Assessee Society. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.05.2022, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1042955890(1), For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Ms. Swagata Ghosh Das, Ex-Chairman Of The Assessee Society Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Praveen Kishore, Sr. Dr Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Assessee Delayed By 819 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein Sufficient & Plausible Reasons For Delay & The Reasons Are Not Found To Be False. Accordingly

For Appellant: Ms. Swagata Ghosh Das, Ex-For Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, Sr. DR

record, we find that the appeal of the assessee delayed by 819 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient and plausible reasons for delay and the reasons are not found to be false. Accordingly, 2 the delay of 819 days

Ritu Verma, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Thane

ITA 377/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu JambaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

Year 2013-2014. As per the registry there is a delay of 20 days in filing the present appeal. In the application seeking condonation of delay it has been explained that the delay in filing the appeal was caused since the counsel for the Assessee was required to attend

Rajiv Rameshkumar Sawhney, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6310/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Govindrao J. Ninawe, Sr. D/R

Section 144Section 69ASection 69C

amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal." There is delay in filing the appeal. The assessee has requested for condonation of delay stating the facts supported by an affidavit. We have carefully considered the contents of the affidavit and are convinced that the assessee was prevented by reasonable

Lummus Technology Heat Trasfer Bv, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- Gurgaon, International Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3821/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee is barred by limitation as there is delay of 1701 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Considering the averments made in the condonation application, involving covid-19 period the delay in filing the appeal is condoned

Jamshedpur Management Association, Jamshedpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Patna

In the result, grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 157/RAN/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Jamshedpur Management Association, C.I.T.(Exemption), 18, Centre For Excellence, Ch Area Patna Vs. (East), Jamshedpur-831001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaeaj 2108 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)

order was passed by the ld. CIT(E) on 24/04/2023, however, this appeal is filed on 10/07/2023. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay mentioning the fact that the assessee requested the Auditors-Agarwal Mahesh K & Co., Chartered Accountants to prepare an appeal before the ITAT, they undertook ... merit. 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr.DR) for the revenue submits that on the issue of condonation of delay, the Bench may take appropriate view as per their discretion. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties on the plea of condonation

Sujata Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamita, Ankola vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Karwar

ITA 67/PAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 067/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sujatha Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Niyamita At.: Balale, Post.:Madangeri, Tal.:Ankola, Dist.: Uttara Kannada. Pan : Aafas2907J . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karwar . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Varun Bhat [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Smt Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06/05/2025 Order

For Appellant: Mr Varun Bhat [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Smt Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 253(3)

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)], thus requiring us to condone the delay in the larger interest of justice. In view thereof the undeliberate delay of 146 days occurred in instituting present appeal by the appellant assessee, after placing reliance ... assessee that, the delay was due to time taken in obtaining digital signature was not supported by any evidence. Admittedly the prayer for condonation of delay before the 4. Ld. CIT(A) remained unsupported by a petition/affidavit explaining circumstance due to which such delay was occurred. In the course

Ashutosh Kumar Prabhat, Arrah vs. PCIT-1, Patna

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

ITA 564/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 154Section 263

Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 103 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “1. That this is an application for condonation of delay in the filing of the instant appeal ... Prabhat. further be pleased to condone delay, if any, in the filing of the instant appeal.” 1.2. On consideration of the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant

Balvir Mohan Mistry, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Navsari

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

ITA 8/SRT/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

well as levy of penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section271(1)(c). 7. Before us, the assessee filed application for condonation of delay, since the present appeals are time barred and submitted that the reason for non- appearance by the assessee before the Tax Authorities were on account

Balvir Mohan Mistry, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Navsari

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

ITA 7/SRT/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Rajkumar Munnilal Gupta, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 30/SRT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DR

Section 270A

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 2. “1. The learned CIT(A) has wrongly rejected my application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. The ‘A’ requests your Honour to provide one more opportunity to explain the case as ‘A’ was prevented by sufficient cause

Aadivasi Sampsabha Charitable Trust, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee/applicant trust are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 18/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

following grounds of appeal: ITA Nos.16&18/Srt/2025 Aadivasi Sampsabha Charitable Trust vs. CIT(E) Asst. Years –N.A. - 2– “1. The appellant request for condonation of delay in filling appeal. The appellate order under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) passed by CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad was received on 03.09.2024 and as such ... appeal was due to be filled on or before 01.11.2024 application for condonation of delay is being separately filled affirming the reason for delay in filling the appeal. Thus, it is requested to please condone the delay in filling the appeal, considering ill health of our Chartered Accountant which cause

Aadivasi Sampsabha Charitable Trust, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee/applicant trust are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 16/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Sanjaybhai Damjibhai Golakiya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 951/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.951/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sanjaybhai Damjibhai Golakiya, Vs. The Assessment Unit, D-74, Vithalnagar Society, Hirabaug, Income-Tax Department, Varachha Road, Surat - 395006 Jurisdictional Ao: The Ito, Ward – 3(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Alopg2048R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. It was due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. The ld. AR has requested to condone the delay in filing the appeal. ITA No.951/SRT/2024/AY.2013-14 Sanjay Damjibhai Golakiya 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue ... opposed the prayer for condonation of delay. He submitted that the assessee was negligent, inactive and not diligent. 5. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue of delay in filing appeal. In the affidavit, it is submitted that the notices and the order were issued

Jayshri Gopallal Maharajshrini Surat Srusti Trust, Surat vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1238/SRT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: of Shri Sapnesh Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 143(1)

filing of audit report in Form number 10B, the assessee filed an application to the CIT (Exemptions), Ahmedabad on 25-04-2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing of Form 10B for assessment year 2022- 23. However, vide order dated 29-02-2024, the request for condonation was rejected ... especially when legislature had Jayshri Gopallal Maharajshrini Surat Srusti Trust vs. ITO (E) Asst. Year –2022-23 - 8– conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay. Accordingly, the Gujarat High Court directed that the order of rectification under section 154 be quashed 7.3 In the case

Kanhiya Lal Choudhary, Todaraisingh vs. Commissioner of Incometax Appeals, Incometax Department Face Less

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

ITA 178/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 178/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Kanhiya Lal Choudhary Near Bus Stand, Todaraisingh Tonk Road, 304 001 बनाम Vs. DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABAPC 0831 G अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri K.L. Moolchandani, ITP राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR Thru' VC सु

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Moolchandani, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 250Section 69C

days in filing the appeal by the assessee before ITAT for which the assessee has filed an application dated 20th Feb. 2025 for condonation of delay with following prayer. ‘’Sub: Request for condonation of delay in filing the second Appeal in the case of Sh. Kanhiyalal Choudhary, Todaraisingh, Tonk ... appreciate that the Appellant was prevented by honest and reasonable cause from filing the present, your honous are therefore, requested to kindly condone the delay and admit the same in the interest of equity and natural justice. To this effect, the assessee has filed an affidavit deposing therein the cause

Mukesh Kumar Jaiswal, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 801/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 253(3)Section 68

time limit prescribed u/s 253(3) of the I. T. Act. An application dated 30/12/2024 was filed by the assessee requesting for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, wherein detailed description of the facts and circumstances, which caused the delay in filing of the appeal has been stated ... Assessment Year:2017-18 2 the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. The learned D.R. for Revenue expressed no objection to condonation of delay or to admitting the appeal for hearing on merits. In view of the foregoing,, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned