← 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

Mammalassery Mor Michael Jacobite Syrian Christian Church Trust, Ramamangalam vs. ITO, Corporate Ward 1 (1), Kochi

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

ITA 204/COCH/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2023-24 Mammalassery Mor Michael Jacobite .......... Appellant Syrin Christain Church Trust Church Junction, Ramamangalam Mammalessery, Muvattupuzha 686663 [Pan: Aagtm4862L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Corporate Ward - 1(1), Kochi

For Appellant: Shri Ranjit R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

learned A.R. submitted that the assessee had filed an application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kochi on 19.12.2024 for condoning the delay in renewal of the exemption registration. Therefore, it is prayed that the matter may be restored to the AO for adjudication in accordance with the outcome ... heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. Since the application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay in renewing the exemption is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), in order to meet the ends of justice

Ayyanthole Panchayath Service Cooperative Bank Limited 471, Kariattukara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 193/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Alan Dev, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

appeal. At the outset, there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 377 days. The appellant filed a condonation petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant was not aware of the order passed by the CIT(A) u/s.250 of the Act. It had come ... account of factors which are beyond its control. In the absence of evidence to the contrary the averments made in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay cannot be 3 ITA No.193/Coch/2025. Ayyanthole Panchayath SC.B Ltd. rejected and therefore the delay of 377 days is condoned and admit the appeal

Narakal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd No E91, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward2(4) & Tps, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 995/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR & Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 80PSection 8O

There is a delay of 477 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of these appeals. It is stated in the condonation petition that the assessee had given relevant papers ... satisfied that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of these appeals and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing these appeals and proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 3. Common issues are raised in these appeals, hence, they were

Narakal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd No E91, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward2(4) & Tps, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 994/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR & Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 80PSection 8O

There is a delay of 477 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of these appeals. It is stated in the condonation petition that the assessee had given relevant papers ... satisfied that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of these appeals and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing these appeals and proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 3. Common issues are raised in these appeals, hence, they were

Narakal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd No E91, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward2(4) & Tps, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 993/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR & Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 80PSection 8O

There is a delay of 477 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of these appeals. It is stated in the condonation petition that the assessee had given relevant papers ... satisfied that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of these appeals and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing these appeals and proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 3. Common issues are raised in these appeals, hence, they were

Narakal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd No E91, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward2(4) & Tps, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 992/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR & Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 80PSection 8O

There is a delay of 477 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of these appeals. It is stated in the condonation petition that the assessee had given relevant papers ... satisfied that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of these appeals and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing these appeals and proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 3. Common issues are raised in these appeals, hence, they were

Spia Charitable Trust, Kottayam vs. CIT(E), Kochi

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

ITA 650/COCH/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2024-25 Spia Charitable Trust .......... Appellant Building No. Xiv/195A, Kottayam Municipality, Kodimatha Old Mc Road Kottayam 6860013 [Pan: Aawts4128H] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Old Railway Sation Road Ernakulam 682018 Appellant By: Shri Jacob Baboo, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Jacob Baboo, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

outset we find that there is delay in filing the appeal by 26 days. The appellant had filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the delay that occurred on account of hospitalisation of one of the trustees, Shri K.T. Mathews. In the absence of any material ... contrary to the averments made in the affidavit, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3 SPIA Charitable Trust 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record

Shaji Ayyapan, Ernakulam vs. ITO Corporate Ward-2(2), Kochi

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

ITA 645/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Ms.Krishna K, AdvocataeFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

delay of 289 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant filed a condonation petition accompanied by an affidavit seeking condonation of delay on the ground that it had no knowledge of the order passed by the CIT(A) till 11th August, 2023, when the order was downloaded ... Income-tax Portal. Thus, he prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. 5. The learned Senior DR opposed the condonation of delay by stating that the explanation offered by the appellant for the delay is general in nature. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused

Shri Ramdas Seva Sansthan Pranyas, Jaipur vs. CIT (E), Jaipur

ITA 180/JPR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 12Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

stage, it may be mentioned here that both the appeals came to be filed after a delay of 11 days. Separate applications seeking condonation of delay came to be filed. Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted that the Secretary of the charitable Shri Ramdas Seva Sansthan Pranyas ... affidavit. 11. Having record to the issues involved in the applications filed by the applicant Institution, we deem it a fit case to condone the delay of 11 days in filing of each appeal. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Coming to appeals on merits, as is available from the impugned

Shri Ramdas Seva Sansthan Pranyas, Jaipur vs. CIT (E), Jaipur

ITA 179/JPR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 12Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

stage, it may be mentioned here that both the appeals came to be filed after a delay of 11 days. Separate applications seeking condonation of delay came to be filed. Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted that the Secretary of the charitable Shri Ramdas Seva Sansthan Pranyas ... affidavit. 11. Having record to the issues involved in the applications filed by the applicant Institution, we deem it a fit case to condone the delay of 11 days in filing of each appeal. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Coming to appeals on merits, as is available from the impugned

Dhapi Devi Tormal Sewa Samiti Dhandhan, Fatehpur vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

Appeal is disposed of for statistical purpose, and while setting aside the impugned order dated 17

ITA 165/JPR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 12Section 12A

mentioned here that present appeal came to be presented after 250 days of the prescribed period of limitation. In order to seek condonation of delay, an application was presented with the appeal. 4. Ld. AR for the appellant-applicant has submitted that delay occurred in filing of the appeal ... appeal against the impugned order, and as such, delay in filing of the appeal may be condoned. 5. The application seeking a condonation of delay is under the signatures of Smt. Suresh Jhabarmal Sharma, President of the applicant Institution. 3 Dhapi Devi Tormal sewa Samiti dhandhan

Team Vagad Charitable Trust, Kutch vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 398/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 398/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : Na

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)Section 80G(5)(iii)

maintainable. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before us and also moved an application dated 29.02.2024 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing administrative transition within the trust, change of Chartered Accountant, and time taken in obtaining relevant documents from the previous consultant

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 357/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 353, 354, 355, 356 & 357/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

disposed of by this consolidated order. ITA Nos.353 to 357/Ahd/2024 Aldiablos Infotech Pvt.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2013-14 to 2017-18 2 Condonation of Delay 2. These appeals have been filed with a delay of 40 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit affirmed by the Director ... proper adjudication on merits. 8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the orders of the lower authorities, the affidavit for condonation of delay, the written submissions filed during the course of hearing, and the case records. The appeals before us relate to reassessment proceedings initiated under section

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 356/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.353, 354, 355, 356 & 357/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

disposed of by this consolidated order. ITA Nos.353 to 357/Ahd/2024 Aldiablos Infotech Pvt.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Years: 2013-14 to 2017-18 2 Condonation of Delay 2. These appeals have been filed with a delay of 40 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit affirmed by the Director ... proper adjudication on merits. 8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the orders of the lower authorities, the affidavit for condonation of delay, the written submissions filed during the course of hearing, and the case records. The appeals before us relate to reassessment proceedings initiated under section

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 355/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

hereinafter referred to as “the Act"). Since common issues are involved, all these appeals are disposed of by this consolidated order. Condonation of Delay 2. These appeals have been filed with a delay of 40 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit affirmed by the Director of the company explaining ... proper adjudication on merits. 8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the orders of the lower authorities, the affidavit for condonation of delay, the written submissions filed during the course of hearing, and the case records. The appeals before us relate to reassessment proceedings initiated under Section

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 354/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.353, 354, 355, 356 & 357/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

disposed of by this consolidated order. ITA Nos.353 to 357/Ahd/2024 Aldiablos Infotech Pvt.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Years: 2013-14 to 2017-18 2 Condonation of Delay 2. These appeals have been filed with a delay of 40 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit affirmed by the Director ... proper adjudication on merits. 8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the orders of the lower authorities, the affidavit for condonation of delay, the written submissions filed during the course of hearing, and the case records. The appeals before us relate to reassessment proceedings initiated under section

Aldiablos Infotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 353/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.353, 354, 355, 356 & 357/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Aldiablos Infotech Pvt.Ltd. 1St Floor, Mauryansh Elanza, Shyamal Cross Road, Ahmedabad – 380 015 बनाम/ V/S. The I.T.O. Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakca 3027 E Assessee By: Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Five Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"], For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14 To 2017-18 Arising From The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao") U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act). Since Common Issues Are Involved, All These Appeals Are Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69A

disposed of by this consolidated order. ITA Nos.353 to 357/Ahd/2024 Aldiablos Infotech Pvt.Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Years: 2013-14 to 2017-18 2 Condonation of Delay 2. These appeals have been filed with a delay of 40 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit affirmed by the Director ... proper adjudication on merits. 8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the orders of the lower authorities, the affidavit for condonation of delay, the written submissions filed during the course of hearing, and the case records. The appeals before us relate to reassessment proceedings initiated under Section

Shree Varad Vinayak Hospital and Healthcare Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 4/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 4/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: Na Vs Cit Exemption, Shree Varad Vinayak Hospital & Health Care Pune Foundation, C/O Popat B Bhandwalkar, Dapodi, Daund, Pune-412203 Maharashtra Pan-Abdcs4704L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhay ShastriFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar
Section 12A

dated 11.03.2024. 2. Registry has informed that the instant appeal is time barred by 216 days. Affidavit alongwith application for condonation of delay has been filed. Ld. DR opposed the condonation stating that no plausible reason has been stated. We after hearing both the sides observe that the delay ... proceedings, medical issue faced by the Managing Trustee and time taken for searching of the counsel for filing of the appeal. We therefore condone the delay finding it to be for a reasonable cause and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal

Nagar Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

assessee has filed this appeal with a delay of 14 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with a sworn affidavit stating therein the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal. On perusal of the same, we are satisfied that the delay in filing

Shree Santoshimata Majoor Sahakari Sanstha, Pen vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

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

ITA 2019/PUN/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2019/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Santoshimata Majoor Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Panvel. Sahakari Sanstha, 203, Gr. Floor, Sonkhar, Pen, Raigad- 402107. Pan : Avhpm2201K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sunil R. Talreja Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of This Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee That He Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Raised No Serious

For Appellant: Shri Sunil R. TalrejaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 44ASection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessment year 2015-16. 2. There is delay in filing of this appeal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. We are satisfied with the explanation of the assessee that he was prevented by reasonable cause for not filing