← 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

Pattasheryvalappil Mohammed Riyas, Kodinhi, Tiruthi Malapuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Tirur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 924/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri. Shaji Paulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 250

year 2017-18. 2. The present appeal is delayed by 64 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, which is duly supported by an affidavit of the assessee. In the affidavit, the assessee submitted that the appellate order was served ... considered view that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal by the assessee within the limitation period. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal by the assessee. 3. Upon perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), we find that the assessee

Kajamoideen Mohammed Hashim, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Palakkad

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

ITA 864/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kajamoideen Mohammed Hashim .......... Appellant 8/351 Kadeeja Manzil, Kadamkode Palakkad 678551 [Pan: Auqpm1241F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Palakkad .......... Respondent

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

learned Sr. DR. 6. There is a delay of 14 days in filing the appeal. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay stating that the delay had occurred on account of the technical glitch in the ITAT portal. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary

Eramalloor Service Co-Perative Bank Ltds No.1175, Cherthala vs. ITO, Ward-1, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 820/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.C.A.Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 250Section 80A(5)Section 80P

under section 80P of the Act was never made by the assessee through filing of return or by filing a belated return through condonation of delay process, and therefore, the assessee lost its opportunity to make a valid claim for deduction. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

Meena Sabu, Ernakulam vs. ITO, DCIT Circle, International Taxation, Trivandrum

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

ITA 1108/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Meena Sabu .......... Appellant Veliyaparampil, Nelson Mandela Road Mulanthuruthi, Ernakulam 682314 [Pan: Ddlps2737F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent International Taxation, Trivandrum

For Appellant: Shri Shijo, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144

outset I find that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 48 days. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the order of the CIT(A) was served on the neighbour near the old address. The email communication ... absence of any evidence contrary, I am of 3 Meena Sabu the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay of 48 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that the addition

Valloli Sheela, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Palakkad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee sands dismissed

ITA 1047/COCH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2022-23 Valloli Sheela .......... Appellant 4/763, Navami Velloli Lane Puthur, Palakkad 678001 [Pan: Ajzps6681D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Palakkad .......... Respondent T Appellant By: Shri Pathmanathan, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Pathmanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 10(10)Section 143(1)

outset I find that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 332 days. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground of illness and was advised complete rest by the Doctor. It is further submitted that since there is strong merits ... averments made in the petition and the medical certificate, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay. Accordingly the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The employees of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be considered as central

Muliyar Agriculturist Welfare Co-Operative Society Ltd, Kasargod vs. The ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Kasargod

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

ITA 455/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Muliyar Agriculturist Welfare .......... Appellant Co-Operative Society Ltd. 374, Bovikanam Post, Muliyar, Kasaragod [Pan: Aafam1658Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1 & Tps, Kasaragod

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

outset it is found that there is a delay 27 days in filing the appeal. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay, which reads as under: - “Sub: Condonation of delay in submission of appeal. Our income tax assessment for the A.Y 2017-18 was completed by the Assessment ... admitted on account of delay it will cause irreparable financial and mental hardships to us. We, therefore, request your good self to kindly condone the delay of 25 days in filing this appeal and admit the appeal for disposal on merits. And for this act of kindness, We, as duty

Income Tax Officer Indore 5(1), Indore vs. Umang Developers, Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 503/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

There is a delay of 131 days in filing both of these appeals. The revenue/appellant has filed applications for condonation of delays supported by affidavits. In these documents, Ld. DR for revenue explained, the revenue has submitted following reason for delay: 2.1 “I, Sanjeev Kumar, presently posted as Income ... technical fault and office procedural, this office has delayed in filing appeal. It is prayed to Hon'ble ITAT, Indore Bench to kindly condone the delay in filing of this Appeal.” The above reasoning was deliberated and the Ld. AR for assessee did not have any objection if the delay

Income Tax Officer 5(1), Indore vs. Umang Developers, Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 502/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

There is a delay of 131 days in filing both of these appeals. The revenue/appellant has filed applications for condonation of delays supported by affidavits. In these documents, Ld. DR for revenue explained, the revenue has submitted following reason for delay: 2.1 “I, Sanjeev Kumar, presently posted as Income ... technical fault and office procedural, this office has delayed in filing appeal. It is prayed to Hon'ble ITAT, Indore Bench to kindly condone the delay in filing of this Appeal.” The above reasoning was deliberated and the Ld. AR for assessee did not have any objection if the delay

Pawan Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

19. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes, and the matter is restored to the files of the Assessing

ITA 76/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2025AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Gorav Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 69A

Registry made a deficiency note that it was barred by limitation having been filed after 235 days of the prescribed period. To seek condonation of delay, assessee has filed an application. During pendency of the matter, the assessee his filed a fresh attested affidavit dated 12.03.2025. 6. On the point ... condonation of delay, Ld. AR for the assessee- applicant has submitted that the applicant was unwell and as such he remained under treatment of three different doctors, who advised him complete bed rest from 19.07.2024 to 25.07.2024, 03.10.2024 to 23.10.2024 & 05.11.2024 to 19.11.2024. 3 Pawan Kumar Sharma

Pankaj Mani Kulshreshtha, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 19/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT a
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay with following observation :- “I, Pankaj Mani Kulshrestha, R/o 41, Nirankar Colony, Jhotwara, Jaipur, hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1. That I had filed ... delay in fact the assessee is at risk. 2.3. 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 deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2.4 We have heard both

Jain International Trade Organisation, Vadodara vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 200/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar Assessment Year: N.A.

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 80G

I.T.A No. 200/Ahd/2025 Jain International Trade Organisation, A.Y. N.A. 3. The appeal is time barred by 68 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been averred that the ld. CIT(E) did not serve the copy of the order in physical form, however

Gayatri Parivar Trust, Arvalli vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 968/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Panchal, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratbnam, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

note that both the appeals are time barred by 152 and 103 days respectively. The assessee / applicant trust filed application for condonation of delay and submitted that since the assessee did not receive the order for rejection under Section 12AB dated 09.10.2023 and since the assessee had not visibility about

Gayatri Parivar Trust, Arvalli vs. The CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 549/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Panchal, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratbnam, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

note that both the appeals are time barred by 152 and 103 days respectively. The assessee / applicant trust filed application for condonation of delay and submitted that since the assessee did not receive the order for rejection under Section 12AB dated 09.10.2023 and since the assessee had not visibility about

Vishalkumar Hareshbhai Darbar, Botad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(8), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 2148/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

that the delay was on account of the demise of the assessee’s father. The learned Departmental Representative did not object to the condonation of delay, considering the short span of delay and the reason stated. 3. We are satisfied that the cause for delay is reasonable and bona fide

Sachin Dilip Agrawal, Jalgaon vs. DCIT Cir 1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 2218/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

NFAC, did not explain for each day of the delay in filing of the appeal and failed to file formal petition for condonation of delay with supporting documentary evidence demonstrating sufficient cause, he dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee being barred by limitation. 5. Aggrieved with such order ... following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other 3 On facts and in law, 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and thereby erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that

Mayur Stones, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1093/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1092 & 1093/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Mayur Stones Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1) Pan:Aarfm5050H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate V. Sriram Niwas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate V. Sriram NiwasFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

outset, we note that there is a delay of 326 days in filing of these appeals. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit duly signed by the Managing Partner of the assessee. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that ... proper service and therefore, the reasons explained by the assessee for the inordinate delay of 326 days is not reasonable or sufficient to condone the delay. Thus, he has objected to the condonation of delay. 6. We have considered the rival submission and carefully perused the relevant material available

Mayur Stones, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1092/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1092 & 1093/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Mayur Stones Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1) Pan:Aarfm5050H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate V. Sriram Niwas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate V. Sriram NiwasFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

outset, we note that there is a delay of 326 days in filing of these appeals. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit duly signed by the Managing Partner of the assessee. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that ... proper service and therefore, the reasons explained by the assessee for the inordinate delay of 326 days is not reasonable or sufficient to condone the delay. Thus, he has objected to the condonation of delay. 6. We have considered the rival submission and carefully perused the relevant material available

Sindhanai Artificial Intelligence Systems Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-6(3), Chennai

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

ITA 3260/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3259 & 3260/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2021-22& 2022-23 Sindhanai Artificial Intelligence The Income Tax Officer, Systems Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Ward6(3) New No.33/2, Old No.5/2, Chennai. Rajeshwari Apartment, 5Th Cross Street, Alagiri Nagar, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026. [Pan:Aaxcs 9635F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80I

claiming deduction u/s 80IAC of the Act can be filed even at the appellate stage 9. The Appellant prays your goodself to condone the delay in filing the form 10CCB to claim deduction u/s 80IAC on account of conditions and circumstances prevailed therein. 10. For the foregoing grounds ... contra, the Ld.DR supported the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and stated that the assessee had an option of filing a petition for condonation of delay before the PCIT u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act and the assessee has failed to do so and hence, the appeal of the assessee

Sindhanai Artificial Intelligence Systems Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-6(3), Chennai

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

ITA 3259/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3259 & 3260/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2021-22& 2022-23 Sindhanai Artificial Intelligence The Income Tax Officer, Systems Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Ward6(3) New No.33/2, Old No.5/2, Chennai. Rajeshwari Apartment, 5Th Cross Street, Alagiri Nagar, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026. [Pan:Aaxcs 9635F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80I

claiming deduction u/s 80IAC of the Act can be filed even at the appellate stage 9. The Appellant prays your goodself to condone the delay in filing the form 10CCB to claim deduction u/s 80IAC on account of conditions and circumstances prevailed therein. 10. For the foregoing grounds ... contra, the Ld.DR supported the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and stated that the assessee had an option of filing a petition for condonation of delay before the PCIT u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act and the assessee has failed to do so and hence, the appeal of the assessee

Kavvery Perumal Satheeswaran, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward 1, Tiruchengode

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

ITA 3102/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.:3102/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Kavvery Perumal Satheeswaran, The Income Tax Officer, 8/66, Thangavel Illam, Cauvery R.S., Vs. Ward 1, Pallipalayam, Erode 638 007. Tiruchengode. [Pan: Asxps2629A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri N.C. Ravi Krishnan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2025 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.09.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 4 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Condonation Petition & Upon Hearing The Ld. Ar & Ld. Dr, We Find That The Reasons Explained By The Assessee Are Bonafide & Therefore, The Delay Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri N.C. Ravi Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 4 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay. On perusal of the condonation petition and upon hearing