← 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

Kazi Zainal Absar, Asansol vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Asansol

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

ITA 348/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 250Section 40

Absar. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 67 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, the contents of which are as follows: “This appeal is being filed against the order ... ITAT, which is being filed now (through speed post), on 12th February, 2024, is belated by 58 days, for which this application for condonation of delay is being filed. The submission of the appellant individual is that, no appeal order has been served through the mail id, mentioned in Form

B.R. Construction, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2534/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 165 days. An application along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee. The content of the affidavit is as follows: “I, Joydeep Mukherjee son of Nitya Gopal Mukherjee, born on 22nd ... ITAT, as the issue involves legal interpretation under the IT Act, 1961. 12. That I am filing this affidavit in support of the condonation of delay in filing the appeal with ITAT. 13. That the delay in filing the Appeal with ITAT is due to sufficient cause

Basudeb Das, South 24 Parganas vs. I.T.O., Ward - 26(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1308/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1308/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2017-2018) Basudeb Das, Vs Ito, Ward-26(1), Kolkata Mamudpur, Charashyamdas, Bishnupur, South 24 Parganas West Bengal Pan No. :Aqppd9974P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Ms. Madhumita Das, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.03.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. As Per The Appeal Record, It Is Observed That The Appeal Is Filed Belatedly By 34 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Application Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay. Considering The Reasons Stated In The Application Of The Assessee, The Delay Of 34 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeals Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Counsel Of The Assessee Has Raised The Additional Ground Which Is Extracted As Under :- 1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Assessing Officer Issuing The Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 On 24.09.2018 Did Not Have Jurisdiction Over The Case Of The Assessee, As There Was No Mention Of The Type Of Scrutiny Under Which The Case Of The Assessee Has Been Selected, Hence The Notice Is Bad-In-Law

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Madhumita Das, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

that the appeal is filed belatedly by 34 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation application stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. Considering the reasons stated in the application of the assessee, the delay of 34 days in filing the present appeal is condoned

Vimal Nalliyappan, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

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

ITA 507/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Tamil Amudhan, C.A ""For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

registry has noted delay of 20 days in filing the appeal. Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit by the Assessee, we condone the delay and treat the reasons as ‘sufficient cause’ and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. In this case, the CIT(A) has treated the appeal ... noted that in column 14 of Form 35, the assessee has admitted there was a delay. However, no application for condonation of delay has been filed along with the appeal. Despite deficiency letter issued to the assessee on 25.10.2024, the same was not responded by the assessee. 4. Before

Mudigundam Srinivasamurthy Manjunath, Mysuru vs. DCIT Circle- 1(1) and Tps, Mysuru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2295/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

passed by the NFAC Delhi dated 28-02-2024 for the assessment years 2015-16. 2. The assessee in the application filed for condonation of delay of 211 days in filing the appeal against the order passed by the learned CIT (A) submits that the delay was primarily ... also contributed to the delay. Supporting medical records have been placed on file. In view of the above, the learned AR prayed to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and decide the issue on merit of the case. On the other hand, the land learned

Shree Gujarati Sankalp Seva Sanstha, Thane vs. CIT (Exemptions), Pune

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

ITA 1537/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailshree Gujarati Sankalp Seva Sanstha, B-40, New Saraswati Park Building 1, Opp. Nirmal Park, Ysv Navghar Road No.3 Maharashtra - 401105 ............... Appellant Pan : Aajas7029R V/S Cit (Exemptions) 322, Income Tax Office, ……………… Respondent Pmt Building, Shankar Seth Road, Maharashtra - 411037

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

present appeal is delayed by 31 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, which is duly supported by an affidavit of the Trustee of the assessee-trust. 3. Having considered the submission made in the affidavit, we are of the considered view ... that there was a sufficient cause, which prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal within the prescribed limit period. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and proceed to decide the same on merits. 4. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following

Shree Sai Foundation Trust, Thane vs. CIT (Exemptions), Pune

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

ITA 1499/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailshree Sai Foundation Trust, B-401, Shri Omkar Palace Chs, Lodha Complex, Indraprastha Gate, Navghar ............... Appellant Maharashtra - 401105 Pan : Abbts0640Q V/S Cit (Exemptions) 322, Income Tax Office, ……………… Respondent Pmt Building, Shankar Seth Road, Maharashtra - 411037

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 12A

present appeal is delayed by 20 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, which is duly supported by an affidavit of the Trustee of the assessee-trust. 3. Having considered the submission made in the affidavit, we are of the considered view ... that there was a sufficient cause, which prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal within the prescribed limit period. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and proceed to decide the same on merits. 4. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following

West End Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1426/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnished Return Of Income Under Section 139 (1) Of L.T.Act. (Ii) Return Of Income For A.Y.2022-23 Filed On 31-10-2023 Though The Return Was Uploaded In Computer For Necessary Submission On 24-09-2022 But Due To Website Problem The Same Remain Unfiled When The Return For A.Y.2023-24 Was Under Process Of Submission, It Was Observed That Return Form A.Y.2022-23 Remain Unfiled, Immediately Return Was Filed. Shree 1008, Shantinath Digamber Jain Trust

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 13Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 250

intimation issued vide order dated 09.12.2024 under section 143(1). The assessee filed application under section 119(2) of Income tax Act for condonation of delay in filing return of income, which is still pending before Ld. CIT(Exemption). The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that the omission ... rather due to bonafide mistake. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of CPC and not 2 Shree 1008, Shantinath Digamber Jain Trust condoned the delay in filing return of income belatedly. The Ld. AR of the assessee prayed that delay in filing the return of income may be condoned

Jitendra Virendra Bagrecha, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1140/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(2)Section 44ASection 45Section 54Section 69A

days. It was submitted that, assessee was not aware of the order having passed by first appellate authority. Assessee has filed petition seeking condonation of delay along with Affidavit by submitting as under: 7 ITA No.1140/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18 Jitendra Virendra Bagrecha 4. The Ld.AR submitted that, only 2 notices ... Collector, land acquisition vs. MST. Katiji & Ors held that, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and the Court should exercise their discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that

Swami Satyaprakashnand Shiv Mandir Trust, Udham Singh Nagar vs. AO (Exemption), Dehradun

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 93/DDN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2022-23 Swami Satyaprakashanand Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shiv Mandir Trust, Kali Kotdwar Mandir, Bareilley Haldwani (Uttrakhand) Bye Pass Road, Kishanpur, Udham Singh Nagar Uttarakhand Pin: 263148 Pan No. Aants6873L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Form 10 electronically in terms of Rule 17(2) of the Income Tax Rule is directory in nature and not mandatory. Application seeking condonation of delay in filing Form under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is pending adjudication before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld. AO erred in by adding ... Earthing Trust Vs. ITO decided on 10.01.2025. 6. Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue submitted that Ld. JCIT had no powers to condone the delay in filing Form 10. 7. From examination of record, in light of aforesaid rival submission, it is crystal clear that appellant/assessee filed return of income

Sanjay Gulati, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1)(4), Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/AGR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals), dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. At the very outset, ld. Representative for assessee has requested to condone the delay of about 452 days (469 days according to assessee), referring assessee’s application for condonation of delay., wherein, it has been stated that the assessee ... sister. The application is supported with assessee’s affidavit, which remains un-controverted. Keeping un-controverted facts stated herein above, we condone the delay in filing this appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs.2

Aastitva Jain Family Trust, Ashoknagar vs. The Income Tax Officer CPC Bengaluru, CPC Bengaluru

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 413/AGR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

Aggrieved by computation of tax liability, the assessee preferred further appeal which was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) for want of condonation of delay of 2176 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee is a private discretionary trust

Mahabhairav Auto LLP, Tezpur vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 213/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Where The Assessee Could Not Succeed Mainly On The Ground That There Was A Delay Of 144 Days In Filing Of The First Appeal, Which Was Not

Section 250

with this action of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has approached the ITAT with the main grounds ventilating the grievance of non-condonation of delay. 2.1 Before us, the Ld. AR relied on the case ... binding nature of the Hon'ble Apex Court order (supra), it is also a fact that the appellate authorities must sparingly not condone the delays in filing of appeals. In the interest of substantive justice, the delays in filing of appeals normally deserve to be condoned, barring exceptional circumstances

Rakesh Kumar, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

ITA 140/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 140/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69A

Income- tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(Appeals) has erred in not condoning the delay and also erred in not appreciating that the appellant is a vegetable vendor and the assessment order was passed ex-parte. 3. In the facts ... however, the appeal of assessee is dismissed on account of delay of 346 days in filing of appeal, by rejecting the request for condonation of delay of the assessee by the First Appellate Authority. 5. At the outset, it is observed that an application seeking adjournment of the case

Iit Bhilai Innovation and Technology Foundation, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 139/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.139/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Iit Bhilai Innovation & Technology Foundation Old Dhamtari Road, Sejbahar, Government Engineering College Campus, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aafci9961E ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

same was upheld by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel submitted that regarding condonation of delay in filing Form 10, the assessee has filed petition before the concerned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and proceedings are going on. That from the Bench ... Counsel for the assessee has made statement at bar saying that they are exploring possibility of adjudication on the condonation of delay in filing Form 10 before the revenue authority. When in any case, such condonation of delay in filing of Form 10 is outside the adjudicative jurisdiction

Surya Electromech Privet Limited, Gandhidham vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Gandhidham

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

ITA 262/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.262/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Income Tax Officer, Suryaelectromech Private Limited, Vs. Ward 2, Plot No.33, Gidc, Sector No.8, Gandhidham Gujrat Gandhidham 370201 370201

For Appellant: ShriChetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungalia, Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 144Section 250

been filed by the assessee belatedly. The learned AR adverted our attention to the affidavit filed in this regard citing reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 68 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted

Kunal Kumar, Nalanda vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Bihar Sharif

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

ITA 278/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Both Of The Ld. Ao & The Ld. Cit(A), The Assessee Did Not Attend To Any Of The Dates Fixed For Filing Of Details/Hearing. Thus, Both Of The Orders Are Exparte In Nature.

Section 250

jurisdictional Assessing Officer about the same. Thereafter, he downloaded the impugned order from the income tax portal. He has requested for condonation of delay accordingly. 1.1 We have considered the reasons advanced for the said delay and the same is condoned not only for the reasons given in the petition

Prof. Rajendra Singh Shikshan Samiti, Mandsaur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru and ITO (Exemption), Ujjain

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

ITA 417/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: S/Sh. Apurva Mehta & Rajesh Mehta, ARs
Section 10Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 250

pointed out by the registry that the appeal is belatedly filed by 14 days. The assesee has filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay, where it is submitted that the order of the first appellate authority has been passed on 20.02.2024 and the appeal should have been filed within ... have heard and considered the reasons contained in the affidavit and we are satisfied regarding the reasons put forth and as such we condone the delay of 14 days and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 5. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form

Hajaria Soft Services Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 74/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.74/Lkw/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hajaria Soft Services Pvt Ltd Income Tax Officer-3(2) V. A-1462, Sec-1, Lda Colony, Lucknow-New Kanpur Road Ashiyana, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226012. 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Hazratganj, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Aadch6101R अपीलाथ"/(Appellant) ""यथ"/(Respondent) अपीलाथ" "क और से/Appellant By: None ""यथ" "क और से /Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) आदेश / O R D E R Per Anadee Nath Misshra, A.M.: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 05/08/2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 69Section 80J

further grounds of appeal with permission.” (2) The appeal is barred by limitation by 92 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative

Bhup Singh Koundal, Mandi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Shimla

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 751/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate, with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)

ought to have been filed upto 04.02.2024. Thus, the appeal is time barred. The assessee A.Y.2010-11 2 has filed an application for condonation of delay. In the application, it has been pleaded that assessee is working in Intelligence Bureau and remained posted outside. On his visit to his Home Town ... bonafide mistake. He himself cannot keep a tab on the status of the litigation before the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to decide it on merit. A.Y.2010-11 3 5. A perusal of grounds of appeal would reveal that assessee is challenging