← 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

Kedar Prasad Vijay, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are disposed off as per

ITA 1280/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

days in filing the appeal (supra) by the assessee for which the assessee has filed two applications dated 13-10-2024 for condonation of delay narrating therein the same viewpoint/ reasoning which are as under:- 4 ITA NOS. 1280 & 1281/JPR/2024 SHRI KEDAR PRASAD VIJAY VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR ... Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, G-4, Raj Mahal Residency Area, C' Scheme, Jaipur. Application for condonation of delay in Filing of appeal in the case of KEDAR PARSAD VIJAY, 236, Scheme Number 1 Alwar Rajasthan PAN: AATPV5993J A.Y. 2014-2015 and 2016-17. Respected Sir, It is humbly

Prakash Chand Varindani, Jaipur vs. ACIT Certal Cirlce-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1146/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him. 2

For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Soni, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 40A(3)Section 68

appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of the assessee filed an affidavit stating the reasons for delay and prayed for condonation of delay, the content of the affidavit reads as under :- 3 RAJASTHAN AFFIDAVIT ITA No. 1146/JP/2024 Prakash Chand Varindani vs. CIT Before the Income Tax Appellate ... ATTEST 2024 20-9 DEPONENT 4. On this issue while hearing of the appeal, the Id. DR objected to assessee's application for condonation of delay stating that the reasons advanced by the assessee are not sufficient, though he may be facing the hardship on the DRT issue

Shree Chitra Gupta Samuhik Vivah Samiti, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 1030/JPR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1030/JPR/2024 Shree Chitra Gupta Samuhik Vivah Samiti 717 Jat Ke Kuwa Ka Rasta, Chondpole Bazar, Jaipur. बनाम Vs. The CIT Exemption, Jaipur. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AALTS8174Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant नर्धारिती की ओर से / Assesseeby : Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, C.A. (Thr. V.C.) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, C.A. (Thr. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12V

going to achieve any benefit for the delay. 3.3. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR objected to assessee’s application for condonation of delay and prayed that Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. 3.4 We have heard both ... parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that the reasons as advanced by assessee for condonation of delay of 68 days are sufficient to condone the delay which has merit. Thus, we concur with the submission of the assessee and condone the delay of 68 days

Muslim Lalmohammed Solanki, Ahmedabad vs. Income-Tax Office, Ward 6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to

ITA 433/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act"] vide order dated 20.11.2018 passed under section 144 r.w.s.147 of the Act. Condonation of Delay 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal before us. In support ... assessee acted in good faith and took remedial steps expeditiously. 3. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) did not raise any objection to the condonation of delay. 4. In view of the reasons stated in the sworn affidavit and considering that the delay is marginal (10 days) and adequately explained

Gomtidas Govindram Sadhu, Ramji Mandir Shertha, Gandhinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 Gandhinagar, Udyog Bhawan, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes with a direction as above

ITA 344/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 344/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Palak Pavagadhi, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 250Section 69A

Gandhinagar [hereinafter referred to as “AO”] passed under section 144 of the Act. Gomtidas Govindram Sadhu vs. ITO A.Y. 2017-18 2 Condonation of Delay 2. The appeal is delayed by 362 days. In support of the petition for condonation of delay, the assessee filed a duly notarized affidavit ... default, the assessee appointed a new authorised representative and promptly filed the present appeal. 3. The Departmental Representative (DR) raised no objection in condoning the delay and left the decision to the wisdom of the bench. 4. Considering the explanations offered in the affidavit and having regard to the peculiar

Shri Parswachandra Gachha Jain Trust Palitana, Bhavnagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1697/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1697/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : Na

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

provisional registration granted earlier under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act. Shri Parswachandra Gachha Jain Trust, Palitana vs. CIT(E) 2 Condonation of Delay 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 313 days in filing the present appeal before us. In this ... regard, the assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay supported by a duly sworn affidavit of Shri Girish Mulji Vora, trustee of the assessee trust. It has been stated therein that the assessee became aware of the rejection order only in April 2024 upon accessing the Income

Maruthi Constructions, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed being not maintainable

ITA 91/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.91/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Maruthi Constructions Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(3) Pan:Aamfm5200E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: /04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20/06/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee When The Appeal Was Called For Hearing, Despite The Notices Issued To The Assessee Through Rpad As Well As On The Email Id Given In Form- 36. Further, It Transpires From The Record That This Appeal Is Filed Belatedly & There Is A Delay Of 145 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Also Not Signed & Verified The Memorandum Of The Appeal In Form-36 As Well As Grounds Of Page 1 Of 2

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 253

days in filing the present appeal and despite the defect notices issued to the assessee, the assessee has neither filed any application/affidavit for condonation of delay explaining the cause of delay, nor removed the defect of non- signing and verification of the memorandum of appeal in Form- 36. Accordingly

S A Projects, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1398/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1398/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sa Projects Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11 (3) Pan: Acyfs7618E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09/04/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 144

aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication including the condonation of delay. The assessee is Page 4 of 5 ITA No 1398 of 2024 SA Projects also directed to produce relevant record including the application/ affidavit to explain the cause

Raj Bala Nagar, Delhi vs. Tio, Ward-29(4), Delhi

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

ITA 5964/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Raj Bala Nagar Vs Nafc, Cit(A), Delhi / C 2/62, Ground Floor Ao, Ward-29(4) Safdarjung Development Civic Centre Ar, New Delhi-110016 New Delhi Pan-Aenpn3825P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K S Bawa, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2025

appeal before the Tribunal against the first appellate order passed adversely against the assessee. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee sought condonation of delay on the ground that the assessee is an uneducated lady from rural background and is not well-versed with the procedural technicalities. The assessee ... facts’ test should apply and the delay to be viewed benignly. 4. In the light of the submissions made, I am inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, in the course of hearing, pointed out that the additions arise

Manasbal Trust, New Delhi vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5469/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate and Shri Mahender Goel, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

20th July, 2022. 5. The CBDT has subsequently issued a Circular No. 16/2022 requiring assessees to approach the CIT(Exemption)/PCIT (Exemption) for condonation of delay in filing the Audit Report in Form No. 10-B. Accordingly, the Appellant had filed a Petition for Condonation of Delay on 13/07/2022 Subsequently ... response to the application for Condonation of Delay filed by the Appellant, a letter asking for details and documentary evidences was received from the CIT (Exemptions) on 3r August, 2022. The response to the letter was furnised by the Appellant on 16t August, 2022. However, since the submission

Rishabh Bhatia, Panipat, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Panipat, Haryana

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

ITA 4789/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royrishabh Bhatia Income Tax Officer, 10-R, Model Town, Panipat, Panipat, Vs. Haryana. Haryana-132103 Pan-Aadcn3076F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Udit Dad, Adv. Department By Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/04/2025 O R D E R Per Madhumita Roy, Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Arising Out Of The Order Dated 28.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Assessing Officer, Ward-5, Panipat [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Was Barred By Limitation For 18 Days, In Support Of Which The Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Perusal Of Which, It Appears That Due To An Inadvertent Rishabh Bhatia Vs. Ito Oversight On The Part Of The Staff At The Office Of The Counsel For The Assessee, The Receipt Of The Impugned Order Was Not Promptly Brought To The Attention Of The Ld. Counsel, And, Therefore, The Appeal Could Not Be Filed In Time. The Assessee Being Diligent In Pursing Their Matter When Enquired From Their Counsel About The Status Of The Appeal, The Counsel Immediately Took Cognizance Of The Receipt Of The Impugned Order & Filed The Appeal. The Reason Assigned By The Assessee For Filing The Appeal Late As Discussed Hereinabove, Seems To Be Genuine Which Has Also Not Been Confronted By The Ld. Dr. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned. The Appeal Is, Thus, Admitted.

Section 143(3)

Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The appeal was barred by limitation for 18 days, in support of which the application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, perusal of which, it appears that due to an inadvertent Rishabh Bhatia vs. ITO oversight on the part

Minakshi Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 59(6), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1926/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1926/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2011-12) Minakshi Sharma, A-612, Dilshad Colony, East Delhi, Delhi 110095 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Bsups-4065-G बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ..... "ितवादी/Respondent National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/01/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 09/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 05.10.2023, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 142 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal. The Reason For Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is On Account Of Medical Exigencies. The Assessee To Substantiate The Reason Has Annexed Medical Records With The Application. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional Or For Want Of Action, But Was For The Reasons Stated In Application Which Appears To Be Bonafide. The Delay

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 39Section 69A

dated 05.10.2023, for assessment year 2011-12. 2. The appeal is time barred by 142 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal. The reason for delay in filing of appeal is on account of medical exigencies. The assessee to substantiate the reason

Jai Prakash Kataria, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Gurgaon

The Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2604/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandrajai Praksh Kataria Vs. Ito House No. 8, Village-Biswa, Ward-2(2) Sector-12A, Gurgaon, Gurgaon, Haryana Haryana Pan: Axcpk4356N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Nfac’ For Short] Dated

There is a delay of three days in filing the present appeal. For the reason stated in the application for condonation of delay of three days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, an ex-parte assessment order came to be passed

Late Singaravelu Krishnammal, L/H. R.S. Gandhi, Nagapattinam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Nagapattinam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3022/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3022/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.I.Roopa, Addl, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

proceedings when recovery notices were received. It was urged that the delay was neither intentional nor wanton. Request was accordingly made to condone the delay and adjudicate this appeal. We have noted that no litigant benefits by non- prosecution of its case. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious ... objections to the condonation of delay. Accordingly, the requested delay is condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication. 3.0 At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee informed that the main issue in the appeal is assessment made upon a dead person. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld.AO

M. Kamalakannan, Vellore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

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

ITA 946/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.946/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 M. Kamalakannan Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Rep. By Legal Heir K. Kumaravel, Income Tax, No. 44, Kavi Medicals, Gudiyatham Central Circle 3(4), Road, Pallikonda, Vellore 635 809. Chennai. [Pan:Avspk5120C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. M. Nuzhath Khanam, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Maruthu Pandian, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.02.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 149 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Petition, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Ms. M. Nuzhath Khanam, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Maruthu Pandian, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 69A

year 2020-21. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 149 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said petition, we find the reasons stated by the assessee

Abhay Hemrajji Sharma, Karnataka, Koppal vs. Income Tax Offier, ITO Ward(One) Koppal

In the result, this ground of appeal is also allowed

ITA 2145/BANG/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Apr 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Raghavendra Chakravrthy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also drawn our attention on the petition for condonation of delay in filing appeal by submitting that the assessee due to certain personal exigencies had to travel to Rajasthan due to which the assessee could

Akhil Bhartiya Gahoi Vaishya Mahasabha, Gwalior vs. ITO, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 238/AGR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Smt Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 148

represented by Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Ld. Sr. DR. 3. It appears from the perusal of record that the appellant assigned the reason for condonation of delay before the learned CIT(Appeals) that the notices u/s. 148 and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the erstwhile President ... delay of only 9 days, which, in our opinion, cannot be termed as an inordinate delay keeping in view the reasons for condonation of delay, which stand un-controverted on behalf of the Revenue. 5. It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied

Sanila Mol, Navelim, Margao Goa vs. Income Tax Officer, Margao Goa

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

ITA 52/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 52/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) Sanila Mol, Vs I.T.O-Ward-3, 406-G, Vijay Niwas, Blessing Pioneer Cplx, . Shanti Nagar, Old Market, Aquem Baixo, Navelim, Opp:District Court, Salcete-403601, Margoa-403601, Goa. Goa. Pan/Gir No. Baqpm8101B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144

found that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are 2 ITA. No.52/PAN/2025 Sanila Mol. reasonable and sufficient cause was explained ... specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) sustaining the additions u/sec69A of the Act and income determined under presumptive basis. 3. The brief facts of the case are that

Sagara Vikasa Mutually Aided Co Op Thrift Society Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 122/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.122/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sagara Vikasa Mutually Aided Vs. Income Tax Officer, Coop Thrift Society Ltd, Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aacas9620H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Smt A Aruna For Shri Gvn Hari ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Smt A Aruna for Shri GVN HariFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234FSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

meantime, the assessee also filed an application before the Ld. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad (“Ld. CCIT, Hyderabad”) seeking condonation of delay in filing ITR for the AY 2018-19 U/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act and the Ld. CCIT, Hyderabad vide order dated 12/03/2025 accepted the assessee ... submissions and condoned the delay. Therefore, the Ld. AR pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO to decide the assessee’s claim of deduction U/s. 80P of the Act afresh in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, the Learned

Cheriammal Mumtazeer, Kannur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Kannur

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

ITA 218/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Cheriammal Mumtazeer .......... Appellant New Bus Stand, Thalasssery, Kannur 670101 [Pan: Aefpm2018B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Kannur .......... Respondent

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

find that the appellant filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) with a delay of 172 days. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), dismissed the appeal without considering ... appellant. 5. Thus, the order passed by the CIT(A) suffers from ambiguity and the CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone the delay without giving reasons as to how the explanation tendered by the appellant does not constitute sufficient cause for delay. 6. In the circumstances