← 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

Oxford Siksha Samiti Bhopal, Bhopal vs. ITO, Exemption, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 331/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.331/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Oxford Siksha Samiti Bhopal Ito (Exemption) बनाम/ 96, Chitragupt Nagar Gwalior Vs. Kotra Sultana, Bhopal 462 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaao-3353-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

denying deduction claimed u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) by assessee trust. The Ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 2277 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. The Ld. AR advanced argument and made out a case that

Shri Swami Vivekanand Trust, Adipur vs. The ITO (Exemption), Ward(1), Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 902/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.902/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Swami Vivekanand Trust The Ito (Exemption) बनाम Plot No.1, Dc-2 Ward-1 Rambaug Road Rajkot. Vs. Ward-6A, Adipur. Pan : Aabts 1102 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Chennai[In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac’], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 02.05.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Intimation Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Cpc) U/S 143(1) Of The Act, Dated 31.10.2015. Shri Swami Vivekanand Trust 2 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

electronically the audit report in Form 10B which is mandatory as per Section 12A(1)(b) of the Act, therefore, ld.CIT(A) cannot condone the delay in submitting Form 10B because the CIT (Appeals), lacks the authority to condone Shri Swami Vivekanand Trust 3 such delays. Additionally, the Jurisdictional Commissioner ... Income tax (exemptions) has already rejected the assessee's request for condonation of delay in filing the audit report for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. The ld CIT(A) noted that the assessee failed to fulfil, the fundamental requirement of timely audit report submission therefore, the adjustment made

Shri Shardagram Alumni Education and Charitable Trust, Rajkot vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 175/RJT/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2024-25
For Respondent: Shri M.N. Manvar, AR
Section 119Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench that Tribunal has power to condone the delay, therefore, delay may be condoned and matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld.CIT(E) with a direction to grant approval ... circular No.8/2022 of CBDT dated 31.03.2022 and latest Circular No.6/2023 dated 24.05.2023, of the CBDT, we do not have any option but to condone the delay in filing application in Form No.10AB, u/s 80G(5) of the Act. We note that Co-ordinate Bench of Jodhpur in the case

Pooja Jigarbhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(8), Surat

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

ITA 899/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vijayananda Pruseth Assessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Dalzin Madan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) of 632 days. That an application was filed before the CIT(A) for condonation of delay pleading that the assessee was not served any notice or the copy of the assessment order and was not aware of the passing ... aforesaid circumstances, there was a delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) rejected application for condonation of delay and, thereby, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that even the case of the assessee remained un-represented before

Bharuch Jilla Pensioners Mandal, Bharuch vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1319/SRT/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Mar 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Assessment Year 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Kamlesh Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Pophare, CIT-D.R
Section 12A

I.T.A No. 1319/Srt/2024 Bharuch Jilla Pensioners Mandal, A.Y. 2023-24 3. The appeal is time barred by 594 days. Separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been stated the assessee was not aware of the passing of the impugned order of the CIT(E). That

Mohanlal Chhaganlal Kabrawala, Bharuch vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1317/SRT/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Mar 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Kamlesh Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aashish Pophare, CIT-D.R
Section 12A

assessee for final registration u/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act. The appeal is time barred by 566 days. Separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been stated that the assessee was not aware of the passing of the impugned order

Inditrade Business Consultants Limited, Ernakulam vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 655/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanthan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 69C

year 2018-19. 2. The present appeal is delayed by 56 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay which is duly supported by an affidavit signed by the director of the assessee company. In the affidavit, it is submitted that the copy ... prayed for the condonation of the delay in filing the present appeal. Having considered the submissions of the assessee in its application seeking condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal by the assessee within the prescribed limitation period

Somesh Parnami, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

ITA 28/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers. Besides this, the assessee has filed a medical certificate from 3 Somesh Parnami vs. ITO the Doctor Vaihav Mathur, DM (Neurology), SMS Medical ... only 376 days. In the circumstances of the matter it is humbly prayed to yourgoodself to please accept the application/prayer of the condonation of delay which is merely of 376 days and to please be kind enough to direct the listing of the appeal for disposal on the merits.” Further

Banti Devi, Kotputli vs. ITO War 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 1341/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh choudhary, Addl. CIT a
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 69A

Banti Devi vs. ITO in filing the appeals by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed the applications for condonation of delay mainly submitting that that this delay has occurred in filing the appeals (supra) due to non- operation of online portal of ITAT. He submitted ... filed on time. Finally, the assessee filed the same offline. To this effect, the assesee has filed an affidavit as to the condonation of delay in filing the appeals. 2.3. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR objected to assessee’s applications for condonation of delay and prayed that

Banti Devi, Kotputli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 1326/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh choudhary, Addl. CIT a
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 69A

Banti Devi vs. ITO in filing the appeals by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed the applications for condonation of delay mainly submitting that that this delay has occurred in filing the appeals (supra) due to non- operation of online portal of ITAT. He submitted ... filed on time. Finally, the assessee filed the same offline. To this effect, the assesee has filed an affidavit as to the condonation of delay in filing the appeals. 2.3. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR objected to assessee’s applications for condonation of delay and prayed that

Income Tax Officer-3(4), Kanpur vs. Smt. Shilpi Agarwal, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 163/LKW/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraito-3(4) V. Smt Shilpi Agarwal 16/69, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil 7/166(1), Swaroop Nagar, Lines, Kanpur-208001. Kanpur-208002. Pan:Ajfpa9933Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 143(3)

reported by the Registry that the appeal is barred by limitation for 380 day’s. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative ... Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision of merits. 3. The Learned Authorized Representative of the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the tax dispute has been settled and Form

Pachchis Gam Patidar Jeevan Sahay Trust, Mehsana vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2047/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2025

Bench: Itat. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons For The Delay & We Hereby Condone The Delay Of 127 Days In Filing The Above Appeal.

Section 12ASection 80G

Therefore in the interest of justice, the delay is to be condoned. 2.1. Ld. CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue strongly opposed the condonation of delay and no reasonable cause made out by the assessee. It is seen that the assessee Trust is from a rural area of Mehsana District ... getting an outstation Tax Consultant to file further appeal before ITAT. We are satisfied with the reasons for the delay and we hereby condone the delay of 127 days in filing the above appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(E) vide impugned order denied registration u/s. 12AB

Pankaj Nago Mahajan, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Jalgaon

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

ITA 408/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.408/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Pankaj Nago Mahajan, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), 28 Ashta Vinayak Nagar, Jalgaon Erandol-425109 Pan : Azkpm7790C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvnesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 144Section 147Section 148

Ward- 2(3), Jalgaon. 2. Registry has informed that this appeal is delayed by 290 days. An affidavit has been filed seeking condonation of delay. Perusal of the same indicates that the assessee has passed through series of problems. During the year his father expired. Thereafter, the Consultant ... judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The sole ground of appeal is regarding the addition for unexplained cash deposits of Rs.12

Abhinav Limaye, Pune vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO Ward 13(2), Pune

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

ITA 2641/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2641/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Abhinav Limaye, Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru. B-605, Sai Marigold, Rahatani Road, Pimple Saudagar, Pune- 411027. Pan : Aclpl5320P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By : Ms. Shilpa N. C. Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl/Jcit(A), Udaipur [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Having Income From Salary, House Property & Income From Other Sources & Has Furnished Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The It Act

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N. C
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

Rs.1,56,730/- was raised. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee ... before Ld. CIT(A) could not be filed within time limit prescribed under the Statute for which an affidavit along with application for condonation of delay was also furnished before Ld. CIT(A). Since 3 Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation

Vikas Raosaheb Powar, Shirol, Maharashtra vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ichalkaranji, Maharashtra

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

ITA 2127/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2127/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vikas Raosaheb Powar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Powar Doodh Dairy Terwad, Ichalkaranji, Shirol, Kolhapur- 416106. Pan : Bcwpp6212J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 103 Days In Filing Of The Present 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 Present Appeal Within Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Raised

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151(2)

There is a delay of 103 days in filing of the present 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

Jpp Alumni Foundation, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption) Pune, Pune

ITA 1424/PUN/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 8

There is a delay of 176 days in filing of the present appeal. In this regard, the assessee company has furnished application for condonation of delay duly supported with an affidavit. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in application for condonation of delay and in the interest of justice ... well as with the consent of 2 Ld. DR, we condone the delay of 176 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a non-profit company registered under the provisions of section 8 of the Companies

Aa522 Kunnathur Velampalayam Primary Agricultural Coop Credit Society Ltd, Tirupur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Tirupur

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

ITA 233/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.233/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Aa522 Kunnathur Velampalayam The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Vs. Ward-1(2), Credit Society Ltd., Tirupur. Ganapathipalayam, Chinniampalayam Post, Kunnathur, Tirupur – 638 103. [Pan: Aacaa 0772C]

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A (virtual)For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

upholding the order of A.O. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay in filing return of income u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act, which is pending before CCIT, Coimbatore. The Ld. AR has submitted that ... complying with the audit requirements u/s. 80 of the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Society Act, 1983. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay before the CCIT, Coimbatore, which is awaited. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore was not justified to dismiss the appeal without awaiting the decision

Shri Ganadhiraj Co Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for AY 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 are allowed

ITA 900/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 245Section 254(1)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

assessee in appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 has raised following grounds of appeal. 1. “The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and not considering the merits of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action ... along with letter dated 03/07/2023, thus, there is delay of 75 days from the date of communication of demand. The assessee contented for condonation of delay in filing appeal. The Ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as unadmitted by rejecting contention of assessee for condoning the delay

Shri Ganadhiraj Co Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for AY 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 are allowed

ITA 899/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 245Section 254(1)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

assessee in appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 has raised following grounds of appeal. 1. “The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and not considering the merits of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action ... along with letter dated 03/07/2023, thus, there is delay of 75 days from the date of communication of demand. The assessee contented for condonation of delay in filing appeal. The Ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as unadmitted by rejecting contention of assessee for condoning the delay

Shri Gandhiraj Co Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 41(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for AY 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-16 are allowed

ITA 898/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 245Section 254(1)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

assessee in appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 has raised following grounds of appeal. 1. “The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and not considering the merits of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action ... along with letter dated 03/07/2023, thus, there is delay of 75 days from the date of communication of demand. The assessee contented for condonation of delay in filing appeal. The Ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as unadmitted by rejecting contention of assessee for condoning the delay