← 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

Anup Ajay Dandapat, Nallasopara vs. ITO Ward 4(1), Thane

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

ITA 657/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia, (SR. DR.)
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

perusal of the same, we deem it fit to hold that the assessee had ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay and we therefore condone the delay caused in filing the present appeal. Anup Ajay Dandapat 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. In the facts ... delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion. 2 Anup Ajay Dandapat 2. This appeal is filed late and an application for condonation of delay is filed along with the appeal. 3. A Detailed paper book along with case laws will be submitted at the time of hearing

Pathare Prabhu Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 591/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Chapekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

interest income.”. 3. There is a delay of 668 days noted by the registry in filing the present appeal for which petition of condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. According to assessee, as it is a cooperative society and not a business entity ... claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) was denied. Thereafter, assessee proceeded to file the present appeal along with petition for condonation of delay and affidavit. According to the assessee, there is no intention to jeopardize the interest of Revenue, by delaying the filing of the present appeal and hence

Ratnaravi Metal Impex, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Ofiicer 19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 268/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble1.T.A. No. 268/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 272ASection 69A

case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) Appeal passed order without considering the reason and circumstances of condonation of delay for the appellant in filing appeal. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO had erred in passing order ... contents of the affidavit, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits of the case. Therefore, we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file

The Anjumane Taiyebi, Mumbai vs. CIT Exemption, Mumbai

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

ITA 1825/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2022-23 The Anjumanetaiyebi Cit Exemption Husaini Masjid Bldg 1St Floor Room No. 601 6Thflr, 66-68 Husainiyah Ma, Mandvi Post Vs. Camballahill,Mtnl Building, Office, Mumbai- 400013 Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400013 Pan No. Aaata 000 7 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Sakina Murtuza ImaniFor Respondent: Mr. Satya Pal Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)

prescribed period. 6. That a re-application for re-registration under Section 80G was made on 12/12/2024, accompanied by a request for condonation of delay. However, this application was not processed. The professional handling the application continuously tracked its status. 7. That the initial application, submitted on 18/03/2024, was processed ... present appeal is being filed expeditiously and without any further delay.” 3. We have heard the rival submissions on the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Learned Departmental Representative did not seriously object to the assessee’s request. In our view, the reasons provided constitute sufficient

Ambekar Beverage and Food Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 6(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1655/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1655/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Ambekar Beverages & V/S. Ito 6(1)(2), Mumbai Food Pvt. Ltd. बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 129, 5Th Floor, 501-502, Road, Mumbai-400020 Shree Krupa, M. B. Raut Road, Shivaji Park, Dadar West, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400028 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aakca7151R Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye
Section 144Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

assessee's affidavit, we find the explanation provided for the delay in filing the appeal to be reasonable. Hence, we hereby condone the delay of 424 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return declaring loss ... appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (Ld. AR) has submitted before us that the reasons detailed in the affidavit for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal also explain the reasons for non compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO. Therefore

Deepak Ramesh Shah, Mumbai vs. The Dcti, Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1438/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi & Ms. Adnya Bhandari, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. D/R
Section 144

r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 3. There is a delay in filing of the appeal. We have carefully perused the application for condonation of delay. We find that the appellant was medically unfit and could not assist the Counsel which caused the delay in filing the appeal by 208 days

Akshay Arun Shetty, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-2, Panvel

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

ITA 1310/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Bleakshay Arun Shetty Ito – 2 Panvel - 410206 Flat No. 6, 3Rd Floor, Shree Chs, Maharashtra. Sector 3E, Kalamboli, Vs Navi Mumbai – 410218 Maharashtra

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 69A

Assessment was completed on 23.09.2021 and appeal was filed on 19.04.2023. The assessee has not shown any reasonable cause for condonation of delay. Assessee is relying on self-serving story. Sr. DR submitted that delay cannot be condoned. On merit, Sr. DR for the revenue submits that since there ... Advise Committee. Original receipt of cost to be placed in the record of this appeal. 5. Considering the fact that I have condoned the delay subject to payment of cost and further keeping in view that the lower authorities have passed the order ex-parte for the want

B N Industries, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 41(4)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1303/MUM/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Bleb.N. Industries Dcit – Circle – 41(4)(1) Kautilyabhavan, G-Block 52/53, Samita Complex Bkc, Bandrakurla Complex Andheri Kurla Road Vs Bandra (East) – 400051 Sakinaka, Andheri (East) -400072 Maharashtra Maharashtra Pan: Aabfb8956B (Appellant) (Respondent ) Assessee Represented By : Shri Himanshu Gandhica Department Represented By : Shri Vijay Kr. G. Subramanyam, Sr.Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement Of Order : 30.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

delay before ld.CIT(A). I find that there was only 16 days, though assessee has not specifically brought the specific cause for condonation of delay. However, keeping in view the delay is not inordinate therefore, considering the contention of Ld. AR of the assessee the delay in filing appeal

Uttari Bharat Sabha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (E)-2(4), Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

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

ITA 1185/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 119Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

section 11(5) for compliance of provision of section 11(2) of IT Act Grounds of Appeal No 3 :- The Assessee prays to Condone for delay in filing Form 10 Grounds of Appeal No 4 :- The CPC erred in Levying Interest” Brief facts of the case are as under ... towards amount applied for object of the Trust. The Ld.AR relied on Circular No.2/2020 dated 03/01/2020, issued by the CBDT, to support the condonation of delay in filing of Form No. 10B for year under consideration. He submitted that, in all cases where the Audit Report for the previous year

Milagro Ceremica Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1033/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Parth Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 156

circumstances of the case and in law ,the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limine by not granting us condonation of delay of 100 days. 4. The appellant craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter or delete any of the grounds at the time ... resulted in delay in filing the appeal which is not attributed to any negligence or malafide. We sincerely request your good self to condone the delay as it may be and decide my appeal on merit.” 4.1. While adjudicating on the appeal, ld. CIT(A) noted that there

Lakhani Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 28(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6949/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6949/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-19) Lakhani Builders Pvt. Ltd. V/S. Acit 28(3), Mumbai 1801, Satra Plaza, Plot No. बिधम Mumbai-400703 20, Sector 19D, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl6926A Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 143Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50

order. Subsequently, the assessee consulted its tax consultant, who advised the filing of appeal as expeditiously as possible along with a petition for condonation of delay. P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2018-19 Lakhani Builders Pvt. Ltd. 4. In view of the facts narrated in the affidavit ... assessee, we find that there was a reasonable explanation given for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay of 225 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring an income

Jaimin S Patel, Bharuch vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6886/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Jaimin S. Patel Acit – Circle – 3(1)(1) Room No. 607, 6Th Floor 135 Patel Faliyu, Itkala Valid Bharuch Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Gujarat – 393135 Vs Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan. Aiopp 2429 E Maharashtra Appellant (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rasesh Shah Fca & Shri Brijesh Vyas Department Represented By : Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 17.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement Of Order : 30.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

Section 115BSection 144Section 254(1)Section 68

basis of facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law on subject, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT (A). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law on subject ... submissions of both the parties and perused the orders of the lower authorities carefully. First, I shall consider the plea of assessee on condonation of delay before Ld.CIT(A). I find that assessment order was passed on 29.06.2019 assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act for the want

Madan Lal Tomar, Agra vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(1), Agra

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as non-maintainable being filed

ITA 44/AGR/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: :Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 250(6)

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal upon rejection of appellant’s request for condonation of delay. 2. At the very outset, it has been brought to the notice of the Tribunal by ld. Representative for the assessee that the impugned

K M Memorial Hospital & Reserch Centre (P) Ltd, Bokaro vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Hazaribag

In the result, this ground of appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 19/RAN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

delay of 52 days in filing this present appeal before this Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. The assessee in its condonation application has stated that the Director, who is responsible for overseeing the working of the hospital/company was on quarantine ... Departmental Representative of the assessee has submitted that the Bench may take an appropriate view. Considering the submissions made by the assessee, we condone the delay of 52 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal and admit the same for hearing on merit. 4. The facts of the case

Showkat Shafi, S.O. Mohammad Yatoo, Yatoo Manzil Nagam Chadoora Budgam, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3), Srinagar

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

ITA 284/ASR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Kushal Chopra, C. A
Section 144Section 250

Ward 3(3), Srinagar dated 09.12.2019 passed u/s 144/147 of the I. T. Act, 1961. 2 I.T.A. No. 284/Asr/2024 Showkat Shafi v. ITO Condonation of delay:- It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is 2. belated by 92 days, the assessee has filed an application for condonation ... managed to file the appeal before the Tribunal on 14th May, 2024 which is belated by 92 days and he prayed for condonation of delay for admission of appeal to be heard on merits. 3. The ld. DR has no objection. 4. Considering the contents of the affidavit, we condone

Hemophilla Society of Kashmir, Srinagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, this appeal against the rejection for registration u/s 80G(5), is also

ITA 209/ASR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C. A
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

rejecting the application for registration for non-compliance to notices issued. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 150 & 209/Asr/2024 Hemophilla Society of Kashmir v. CIT (E) Condonation of delay:- It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is 2. belated by 45 days. An affidavit is filed by the Secretary ... part specially in the cold weather of Kashmir valley. As such in absence of any willful neglect on his part he prays for condonation of delay of 45 days (forty five days) in filing this appeal and requests for admission of appeal to be decided on merits

The Kashmir Crown, Baramulla vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

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

ITA 169/ASR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Apr 2025AY 2023-24
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

I.T.A. No. 169/Asr/2024 The Kashmir Crown v. CIT (E) 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is filed belatedly by 17 days (seventeen days), for which an affidavit is filed by the chairman of the assessee trust (Mohd Imran Ganie ) explaining the delay ... intentional, and the same may please be condoned. The Ld DR has no objections. Taking into considerations the reasons stated, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal contained in form 36 are as follows

Shri Jinam Education and Charitable Trust, Nakhatrana vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 68/RJT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Apr 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal is barred by limitation of 634 days. The assessee moved a petition for condonation of delay requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee explained the sufficient reasons stating that assessee was exercising alternative remedy and therefore ... Exemption), Ahmedabad.” 4. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay and stated that delay should not be condoned on such flimsy reasons because it is the duty of the assessee to take care that the application should

Viklang Vikas Foundation, Rasaliya vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 64/RJT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Apr 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 64/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (Na) (Hybrid Hearing) Viklang Vikas Foundation Vs. Cit(Exemption), Ramdev Nagar, Nr. Bus Station, Room No. 609, Floor – 6, Rasaliya, Nakhatrana Aayakar Bhavan (Vejalpur), Gujarat – 370670 Anandnagar, Prahladnagar Road, Gujarat – 380015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatv8066F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri R. B. Shah, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

time of hearing.”: 3. At the outset, the appeal is delayed by 425 days. Ld. AR has filed an application for condonation of delay. The relevant part of the condonation of delay are reproduced as follows: “1. For the renewal of the trust petitioner had handed over this matter ... assessee should not be suffer because of mistake committed by the Ld. counsel. We find that there is a sufficient cause to condone the delay, therefore, we condoned the delay and admitted the appeal of the assessee for hearing. 7. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

Samir Vinodray Makwana, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajot, Rajkot

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

ITA 28/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Asstt. Year: (2010-11) Shri Samir Vinodray Makwana Income Tax Officer, Ward- Khodpara Main Road, Street 1(2)(3), Rajkot, Aayakar Vs. Noo.D13, Jetpur, Dit. Rajkot-360 370 Bhavan, Race Course Ring Pan : Aiapm 7196 H Road, Rajkot-360 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, ld.Sr.DR
Section 144Section 250(6)

appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal is barred by limitation of 46 days. The assessee moved an affidavit for condonation of delay requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee explained the sufficient reasons stating that assessee was not conversant with accessing ... stated that such minor delay may be condoned. 3. However, Ld. Senior DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of assessee for condonation of delay and stated that delay should not be condoned. 4. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. The assessee explained the reasons