“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

Rameshbhai Popatbhai Chaudhari, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1961/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 5Section 69A

relevant to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The appeal is delayed for filing by 385 days. The application seeking condonation of delay has been filed before me duly substantiated with an affidavit of the assessee explaining the reason for the delay as being an agriculturist residing in rural area ... consultant and had not communicated the passing of the CIT(A) order to the assessee. 3. The ld. Departmental Representative objected to the condonation of delay. 4. However on considering the explanation of the assessee I find, that the assessee has adduced sufficient cause for the delay. The fact that

Istadev Projects, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1413/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

appeal was noted by the Registry to be delayed for filing by 87 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay before us. The explanation furnished by the partner of the assessee firm, Jagdishbhai Dhanjibhai Patel, on oath by way of an Affidavit, is to the effect ... thereafter took remedial steps by filing appeal before us , resulting in a delay of 87 days. 3. The Ld. D.R. vehemently opposed the condonation of delay. But on perusing the contents of the explanation furnished by the assessee by way of an Affidavit I am convinced that the delay cannot

Maisamma Devatha Temple, Mahabubnagar vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Mahabubnagar

ITA 120/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.D.R

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 43Section 69A

order is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and in not condoning the delay of 148 days in filing the appeal before him. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted the appeal and heard the appeal ... Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of 9 the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while

Sudhakar Puri, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 11(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1207/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 114 days by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice-oriented and 5 liberal approach should be adopted while

Dipanshu Gupta, Howwrah vs. ITO, Ward - 37(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2449/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250

Registry has informed that the appeals filed by the assessee are barred by limitation by 119 days and 66 days. Applications seeking condonation of delay have been filed by the assessee stating as under: AY 2015-16 “In the instant case the Ld. CIT(A) passed order under section ... considering the above stated situation and also keeping in mind that the appellant is not conversant with income tax matters kindly condone the delay of 66 days in filing appeal and allow the appellant to file appeal.” AY 2017-18 “In the instant case the Ld. CIT(A) passed order

Dipanshu Gupta, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 37(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2448/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250

Intimate Fashions Foundation, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/JCIT(A)- Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as

ITA 470/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Ms. Hema MuralikrishnanFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)

assessee beyond the time limit. However, while disposing of the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has directed the assessee to file application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B to the jurisdictional PCIT/CIT. 3. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee filed an order dated 01.04.2025 u/s.119 ... wherein the CIT(E), 2 Chennai has condoned the delay in filing Form 10B by the assessee for AY 2021-22. 4. Therefore, in light of the order of the CIT(Exemption) dated 01.04.2025 condoning the delay in filing Form 10B by the assessee, present appeal has become infructuous

Rakesh Kumar Dugar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw03(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3134/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3134 / Chny / 2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.I.Roopa, Addl, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44A

heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that the principal controversy in the matter is non-condonation of delay in filing appeal before him by the Ld. Addl.CIT(A) on the observation that order u/s 143(1) dated 19.03.2019 was received

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Ramco Industries Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3045/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Respondent: Mr.S. Muralidhar, FCA

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 801A(7)Section 80I

outset, the Revenue’s appeal, is delayed by ‘28’ days, for which, the ACIT has filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay, to which, the Ld.Counsel of the assessee has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, the delay of ‘28’ days in filing of the appeal stands condoned

Joy of Sharing Foundation Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-4, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2965/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.K.M. Mohan Dass, CA

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

u/s.11 of the Act, it is mandatory to file Form No.10B before the due date of filing of return or should have got condonation of delay for belated filing of Form No.10B from the CIT Joy of Sharing Foundation Charitable Trust :: 5 :: (Exemption). However, we find that this findings

Shree 1008, Shantinath Digamber Jain Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exem) -2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1244/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

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

Alumilite Architecturals Limited, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 122/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 122/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2019-20) M/S. Alumilite V/S. Cit, Central Circle – Architecturals Ltd. बिधम 1(1)(1), Mumbai 502, Dhiraj Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Hazarimal Somani Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai-400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabca0567C Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Varun Jain रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Varun JainFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia

Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 28

Ovira Logistics Pvt. Ltd.” 3. At the outset, it is seen that the appeal is delayed by 18 months. A petition for condonation of delay has been filed stating that the assessee was not P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2019-20 Alumilite Architecturals Ltd. informed about the dismissal ... hence the appeal was filed after an unintended delay of 619 days. Considering the explanation of the assessee, we hereby condone the delay in filing of the appeal. 4. Brief facts are that the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 5,92,99,240/- on 22.09.2020. An intimation

Income Tax Offier, Mumbai vs. Jagdish Udhavdas Bajaj, Thana

In the result, both, the appeal of the Revenue and cross- objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6257/MUM/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018 Income Tax Officer, Jagdish Udhavdas Bajaj Piramal Chamber, Room No. 319, Plot No.6, Vardhaman 3Rd Floor, Lalbaug, Parel Vs. Compound,Narpoli Karivali Mumbai-400012 Bhiwandi, Vidyashram S.O., Thane. Mumbai-421305 Pan No. Aabpb 4665 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Gajanan BangarFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250

neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the bonafide reasons. 4. We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue of condonation of delay in filing of cross-objection by the assessee. In view of the sufficient cause explained by the assessee for delay in filing the cross ... objection, we condone the delay of 63 days and admit the same for adjudication. 5. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his original return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 31.10.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 5,21,000/-. The said

Prajita Investments Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2850/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri. Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68

reasonable cause for the delay which may be considered for condonation. 2.1 On the contrary, the Ld. DR has vehemently opposed the condonation of delay could not controvert the submission of the assessee. We have perused the submission advance by both the sides in the light of record placed before ... keeping well during the relevant period due to cancer, the lapse happened causing the delay. In the interest of justice we condone the delay as the assessee has made out a reasonable cost. Accordingly, the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay stands allowed. On merits

Naseem Ishrat, Jhansi vs. ITO.Ward 2(3)(5), Jhansi, Up

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 69/AGR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.69/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Naseem Ishrat Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 81, Sangam Vihar Colony, Ward 2(3)(5), Jhansi. Vs. Sipri Bazar, Jhansi (Up). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpi-5615-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] On 30-11-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 30-05-2023. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Made Addition Under The Head Capital Gains & Determined Total Income At Rs.103.50 Lacs. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Admit First Appeal For Want Of Condonation Of Delay Of 77 Days. Aggrieved, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 24 Days In The Appeal. The Ld. Ar Has Prayed For Adjudication Of The Appeal On Merits Which Has Been Opposed By Ld. Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. DR

Section 147

head capital gains and determined total income at Rs.103.50 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit first appeal for want of condonation of delay of 77 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The registry has noted delay of 24 days in the appeal

Shree Badshah Yadav Charitable Trust, Mainpuri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(5), Mainpuri

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 573/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.573/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) Shree Badshah Yadav Income-Tax Officer, Charitable Trust Ward 4(2)(5), Mainpuri. बनाम/ Campus S.K. Scientific Public Vs. Inter College Karhal, Mainpuri(Up). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaots-3631-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] On 15-11-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 144 Of The Act On 28-10-2019. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Made Addition Of Cash Deposit For Rs.37 Lacs For Want Of Any Satisfactory Explanation From The Assessee. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Admit The Appeal For Want Of Condonation Of Delay Of 83 Days. Aggrieved, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Ld. Ar Has Stated That The Assessee Is In A Position To Substantiate Its Case On Merits & Accordingly, Prayed For Another

For Appellant: Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. DR

Section 144

Rs.37 Lacs for want of any satisfactory explanation from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 83 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has stated that the assessee is in a position

Surendra Kumar Sharma, Gwalior vs. Commissioner, Delhi

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 572/AGR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.572/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) बनाम/ Sh. Surendra Kumar Sharma Income-Tax Officer, 354, Tansen Nagar, Gwalior. Ward 3(1), Gwalior. Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Armps-4378-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] On 28-04-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 20-11-2018. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Made Addition Of Cash Deposit For Rs.17.75 Lacs For Want Of Any Satisfactory Explanation From The Assessee. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Admit The Appeal For Want Of Condonation Of Delay Of 74 Days. Aggrieved, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Ld. Ar Has Stated That The Assessee Is In A Position To Substantiate Its Case On Merits & Accordingly, Prayed For Another Opportunity Of Hearing Before Lower Authorities Which Has Been Opposed By Ld. Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147

Rs.17.75 Lacs for want of any satisfactory explanation from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 74 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has stated that the assessee is in a position

Shri Sajadiali Sardar Patel Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot.

ITA 607/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.607/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Sajadiali Sardar Patel Seva Ito Ward-2, (1) (2) Vs. Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Rajkot – 360001 At Sajadiyali – Rajkot New Aayakar Bhavan, At Sajadiyali Taluka, Race Course Ring Road, Jamkandorana, Dist, Rajkot – 360001 Sajadiyali – Rajkot 360001 Gujrat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas2374L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28 / 01 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22 / 04/2025

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80PSection 84

highly relevant. Section 119(2)(b) empowers the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and its delegated authorities to consider applications for condonation of delay and related reliefs in cases of genuine hardship. The section clearly outlines the administrative procedure for such cases, directing that any grievances against decisions under

Shri Bharatbhai Raysinh Vala, Devali Deda, Kodinar, Dist. Junagadh vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(4), Amreli

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

ITA 603/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148A

Bharat Raysinh Vala ITA No. 603/Rjt/2024 (AY 2018-19) appellant on the ground that there is no sufficient or good reason for condoning the delay in filing appeal with his office without appreciating that the appellant's situation and reasons because of which the delay had happened ... delay of 325 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay support by the affidavit, relevant para contain reasons for the delay, the same is reproduced. “3. That I was entirely unaware of the statutory

Iliyas, Khargone vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 445/IND/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiiliyas, Nfac, बनाम/ 56, Khargone Road Bedia, Delhi Vs. Khargone

Section 05Section 07Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 253

delay of 45 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee has taken us through condonation of delay application. Per contra Ld. DR has not opposed condonation of delay. We have perused the condonation application in which assessee has shown reasonable and sufficient ... cause along with an affidavit in support and we are satisfied with same and condone the delay of 45 days in filing the appeal. Matter admitted and taken up for hearing. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of Assessment Order bearing Number :- ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1053047716(1) dated