“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

Jasdev Singh, Bathinda vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Btd, Bathinda

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

ITA 662/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 662/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jasdev Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1), Gobindpura, Bathinda. Bathinda. [Pan:-Bzyps0363N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv & Sh. V.S. Appellant By Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1), Bathinda, passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, vide order dated 28.11.2019. 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is belatedly filed by 386 (three hundred eighty six days). The assessee has filed an I.T.A ... 662/Asr/2024 2 Assessment Year: 2012-13 application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit where it is submitted that the appeal could not be filed due to lack of service of order via e-mail and as such, the assessee was not aware of any existing order passed

Shri Swaran Singh, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Moga

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

ITA 50/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69

dated 24.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 I.T.A. No. 50/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is filed belatedly by 72 (seventy-two) days. The assessee has filed an application ... condonation of delay along with an affidavit requesting for condonation of delay on the grounds that the assessee is an agriculturist and the appeal before the ld. first appellate authority has been filed by his counsel Mr. Vishal Mittal, C.A. where his e- mail id was mentioned in Form

Jivanbhai De vs. Hibhai Sarla, Thangadh, Dist. Surendranagarvs.the ITO Ward 2, Surendranagar

ITA 521/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

days ITA Nos.519 & 521/Rjt/2025 (AY 13-14 & 14-15) Jivanbhai D Sarla (each appeal). In both the appeals, assessee filed respective petitions for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the relay. In both the petitions, for condonation of delay, the contents and facts are identical and similar, therefore ... shall adjudicate the issue of condonation of delay by taking lead petition for condonation of delay, in ITA No.519/Rjt/2025, wherein assessee has explained the reasons for delay. The learned Counsel for the assessee, explains the sufficient cause for delay, stating that the impugned order u/s 250 of the Act dated

Jivanbhai De vs. Hibhai Sarla, Thangadh, Dist. Surendranagarvs.the ITO Ward-2, Surendranagar

ITA 519/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Kunkulagunta Mallikarjuna Rao, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view of the CIT(A), who, in my view, in the absence of any plausible explanation of the assessee regarding the delay involved in filing of the appeal, had r...

ITA 579/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69

delay is not intentional and deliberate the delay may be condoned and appeal may be accepted. This did not appear to be a condonation of delay. 3. Notices u/s 250 of the Act wereissued on 19/06/2025, 07/07/2025 and 18/07/2025 for furnishing submissions on or before 04/07/2025, 17/07/2025 and 28/07/2025 respectively ... through ITBA Portal. The appellant was also required to substantiate the reasons/grounds seeking condonation of delay. These notices were delivered on the mail of the appellant but he did not make any compliancenor filed any further submission with regard to the request for condonation of delay in filing of appeal

Boda Ramasatyanarayana, Draksharamam vs. Income Tax Officer, Kakinada

ITA 532/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 69A

obligations. 14. Be that as it may, I am of the view that though a judicial and liberal approach should be adopted for condoning the delay involved in filing of an appeal by an appellant and the same should normally be condoned, but in cases of a habitual non- compliant ... adopted. I find that the law is well settled that while courts are expected to adopt a liberal approach in considering petitions for condonation of delay where sufficient cause is shown, such liberality cannot be extended to condone inordinate delay where the explanation is vague, casual, or lacking in bona

Assistant Controller F&A Directorate of Industries, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward Shimla

ITA 98/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) came to be dismissed without adjudication on merits, primarily on the ground that there was delay in filing of the appeal and that the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Abhinav Bijwaria, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is a settled proposition of law that while considering an application for condonation of delay, a liberal approach is to be adopted so as to advance substantial justice, particularly where no mala fide intention is attributable to the assessee

Mahinder Kaur, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 937/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 937/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mahinder Kaur, The Ito, Village-Manak Pur Devi, Vs Panchkula. Post Office-Pinjore, Tehsil-Kalka,Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bgnpm2629H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Pandey, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Pandey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

time barred. But actually, A.Y.2011-12 2 appeal is time barred by more than 370 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay pleading therein that she is an old illiterate lady of 73 years. She is not in any organized business. She belongs to a rural strata ... could not keep a track of income tax litigation on online Portal. Therefore, the appeal has become time barred. She prayed for condonation of delay and adjudication of the appeal on merit. 3. The ld. Sr.DR submitted that appeal before the ld.CIT (Appeals) was also time barred. She has taken

Jeet Corporate Services Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 509/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.509/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jeet Corporate Services The Ito बनाम/ Pvt.Ltd. Ward-2(1)(2) V/S. K/2, Shubh Prayog Co-Op. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Housing Society Sujata Flats, Fshahibaug Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccj 6855 H (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tej Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajenkumar M.Vasavda, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 29/08/2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,39,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) On Account Of Unexplained Unsecured Loans Shown By The Assessee. Jeet Corporate Services Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Year : 2012-13 2 3. The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 492 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That The Assessee Neither Received Any Notice Of Hearing From The Ld. Cit(A) Either Physically Or On E-Mail, Nor Received The Copy Of The Final Order Of The Ld. Cit(A). Therefore, The Assessee Was Not Aware About The Passing Of The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A). The Appeal Was Filed When The Said Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Came To The Notice Of The Assessee, When The Department Initiated Recovery Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M.Vasavda, Sr.DR

Section 144

assessee. Jeet Corporate Services Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Year : 2012-13 2 3. The appeal is time-barred by 492 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been pleaded that the assessee neither received any notice of hearing from the Ld. CIT(A) either physically

Milan Seva Trust, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(2) Ahmedabad, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2557/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 2557/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Milan Seva Trust The Ito बनाम/ A-38, Gulab Park Rapna Ward-3(3)(2) V/S. Nagar Ahmedabad Oppal Madina Masjid Sarkhej Road, Juhapura Ahmedabad – 380 055 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aactm 5150 H (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajenkumar M. Savavda, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M. Savavda, Sr.DR

receipts of the assessee without giving any deduction of expenditure. 3. The appeal is time-barred by 659 days. A separate application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been filed, wherein, it has been deposed that the Tax Consultant appointed by the assessee did not bother ... lower authorities. Milan Seva Trust vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 5. Considering the rival submissions and application of the assessee for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned subject to deposit of a cost Rs.5,000/- in Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund

Nishkam Shewa Mandal, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1430/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1430/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : Na Nishkam Shewa Mandal The Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ A-4, Kotarpur Ahmedabad – 380 015 V/S. Hansol Ahmedabad – 382 475 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaatn 2481 J (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Balani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee-Trust Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(E)’] Dated 17/12/2024, Rejecting The Application Of The Assessee For Approval Under Clause(Iii) Of First Proviso To Sub-Section (5) Of Section 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). Nishkam Shewa Mandal Vs. Cit(E)

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Nishkam Shewa Mandal vs. CIT(E) 2. The appeal of the assessee is time-barred by 136 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. 3. At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E) was communicated

Jahaldham Charitable Trust, Banaskantha vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1385/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1385/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : Na Jahaldham Charitable Trust The Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ Tenivada, Vadgam Ahmedabad – 380 015 V/S. Banaskantha – 385 210 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aadtj 5073 D (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urjita Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Ms. Urjita Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 80G

Jahaldham Charitable Trust vs. The CIT E) 2 2. The appeal is time-barred by 426 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been stated that, the trustees of the assessee are not much aware about the income-tax proceedings and that they

Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai Kugasiya, Iqbalgadh vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palanpure, Palanpur

Appeals of the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2086/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2076/Ahd/2024 – Asst.Year 2015-16 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2085/Ahd/2024 – Asst.Year 2017-18 3. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2086/Ahd/2024 – Asst.Year 2018-19 1. Agrawal Rajeshkumar 1. The Dy. Cit बनाम Babulal Huf Circle, Gandhinagaar / Prop. Shri Mahavir Trading Co. Income Tax Office V/S. Iqbalgadh, Amirgadh Udhyog Bhavan, Banaskantha – 385 130 Gandhinagar 382 011 Pan; Aacha 5546 F

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

case of Agrawal Rajeshkumar Babuilal HUF) and 101 days (in the case of Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai Kugasia in each appeal). Separate applications for condonation of delay in filing these appeals have been filed by the assessees, wherein, it has been deposed that the assessee(s) was not aware of passing

Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai Kugasiya, Iqbalgadh vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circl, Palanpure, Palanpur

Appeals of the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2085/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

Agrawal Rajeshkumar Babulal HUF, Amirgadh vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Gandhinagar

Appeals of the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2076/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

Jhv Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed but the order of the Pr

ITA 1289/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 12 days. However, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay of 11 days explaining the reasons that the memorandum of appeal along with the required documents were given to the tax consultant who could not file ... assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA No.: 1289/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 JHV Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before

L Karuppusamy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

ITA 224/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

have been filed with a delay of 61 days / 92 days, as pointed out by the Registry. The assessees have filed affidavits seeking condonation of delay, explaining that the delay occurred on account of their awaiting receipt of the remaining appellate orders in order to file all appeals collectively ... appeal fees. 2.1 The Learned Departmental Representative (hereinafter referred to as “the ld.DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the prayer for condonation of delay. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that ITA No.1119/Chny/2025 & ‘60’ Others Mr. P. Palanisamy M/s. P.P. Financiers Mr. P. Kuppuchamy

P Kuppuchamy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

ITA 223/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Mr. P. Palanisamy, 390, P.P. Nilayam, 9Th Main I Cross, Hal Ii Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560 038. [Pan:Adspp 9150 F] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.219, 220, 221 & 222/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.200, 201 To 208/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2011-12 To 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3388 To 3392/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 M/S. P.P. Financers, 24, Radha Avenue, 3Rd Street, Valsaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. [Pan: Aahfp 0288 L] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.215 To 218 & 223/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19 & 2014-15 Mr. P. Kuppuchamy, No.80/7, 17Th Cross, 16Th Main Road, Btm Layout, Ns Palya, Bangaluru-560 076. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore.

M/S. P.P. Financiers, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore

ITA 222/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 निधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 निधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Mr. P. Palanisamy, 390, P.P. Nilayam, 9Th Main I Cross, Hal Ii Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560 038. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan:Adspp 9150 F] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.219, 220, 221 & 222/Chny/2025 निधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.200, 201 To 208/Chny/2025 निधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2011-12 To 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3388 To 3392/Chny/2024 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 M/S. P.P. Financers, 24, Radha Avenue, 3Rd Street, Valsaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan: Aahfp 0288 L] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.215 To 218 & 223/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19 & 2014-15 Mr. P. Kuppuchamy, No.80/7, 17Th Cross, 16Th Main Road, Btm Layout, Ns Palya, Bangaluru-560 076. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore.

M/S. P.P. Financiers, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Chennai

ITA 221/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 नधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 नधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Mr. P. Palanisamy, 390, P.P. Nilayam, 9Th Main I Cross, Hal Ii Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560 038. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan:Adspp 9150 F] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.219, 220, 221 & 222/Chny/2025 नधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.200, 201 To 208/Chny/2025 नधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2011-12 To 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3388 To 3392/Chny/2024 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 M/S. P.P. Financers, 24, Radha Avenue, 3Rd Street, Valsaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan: Aahfp 0288 L] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.215 To 218 & 223/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19 & 2014-15 Mr. P. Kuppuchamy, No.80/7, 17Th Cross, 16Th Main Road, Btm Layout, Ns Palya, Bangaluru-560 076. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore.

have been filed with a delay of 61 days / 92 days, as pointed out by the Registry. The assessees have filed affidavits seeking condonation of delay, explaining that the delay occurred on account of their awaiting receipt of the remaining appellate orders in order to file all appeals collectively ... appeal fees. 2.1 The Learned Departmental Representative (hereinafter referred to as “the ld.DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the prayer for condonation of delay. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that ==End of OCR for page 5== The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case