“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

Malini, Thirunindravur vs. ACIT, Ncc-22(1), Tambaram

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2362/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.:2362/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 Malini, The Assistant Commissioner Of 7, Ganapathy Puram, Near Vs. Income Tax, Ragvendra Nagar, Periyapalayam Non Corporate Circle 22(1), (Tbm), Road, Thiruninravur 602 024, Chennai. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Ajspm-9167-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2025 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 25.06.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 17 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 D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 250Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 17 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

Plr Textiles Ltd., Chennai vs. The ACIT, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 133/CHNY/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 133/Chny/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 Plr Textiles Ltd., The Acit, 8K, Century Plaza, V. Corporate Circle -5(2), 560-562, Mount Road, Chennai – 641 034. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacp-6536-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai, Vide Ita No.153/Cit(A)-3/2018-19For The Assessment Year 2005-06, Dated 13.03.2020. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Appeal Filed By The Assessee, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Reasons For Delay Has Been Filed. After Considering The Petition Filed By The Assessee, Reason For Delay In Filing The Appeal Was Due To Covid-19 Pandemic & Also Hearing Both The :-2-:

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

outset, we find that there is a delay of 346 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons for delay has been filed. After considering the petition filed by the assessee, reason for delay in filing the appeal

Gaviyappa Ramesh Lakshmi, Anchekeri Kengeri vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 95/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh N. Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Srinandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 144

Assessment Year 2017-18 and noted that there is inordinate delay of 391 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. FAA did not condone the delay for both the Assessment Years and dismissed the appeals of the assessee. The learned Counsel reiterated the reasons submitted for condonation of delay ... distributor. The reasons submitted by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal before the AO is a casual reason and objected for condoning the delay. 5. Considering the rival submissions for the Assessment Year 2017-18, assessee deposited huge cash in her bank account. Inspite of that, assessee

Gaviyappa Ramesh Lakshmi, Anchekeri Kengeri vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(3) Bangalore, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 94/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh N. Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Srinandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 144

Sameeksha Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 816/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 816/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) M/S. Sameeksha Trust V/S. Ito(Exemptions)-2(1), 320/321, A-Z Industrial बिधम Mumbai Estate, G.K. Marg, Lower 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill, Parel, Mumbai-400013 Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaats0581L Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Shri MandarFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Afaqui

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 249(1)Section 250

result, the manual appeal is treated as dismissed. The appellant is free to e-file the appeal once again with a request for condonation of delay.” 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 05.02.2025 after a delay ... file the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) as per the direction of the Ld. CIT(A) along with an application for condonation of delay. 7. It is also noted that the Ld. CIT(A) himself has taken more than two years to pass the order dated 26.11.2018, dismissing the manual

Sulochana Suresh Mankumare, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 810/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 142(1)Section 148

refer to the decision of Hon’ble Cochin Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Midas Polymer Compounds Pvt. Ltd. dated 25.6.2018, condoned the delay of 2819 days by observing as follows: “6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. There was a delay ... accompanied by an affidavit which has been cited in the earlier para. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons and prayed for condonation of delay. The reason stated by the assessee is due to inadvertent omission on the part of Shri Unnikrishnan Nair N, CA in taking appropriate action

Mega Venture Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 5(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 424/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 424/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) Mega Venture Developers V/S. Acit-5(2)(2), Mumbai Pvt. Ltd. बिधम Room No. 571, 5Th Floor, 110, Vashani Chambers 47, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi New Marine Lines, Karve Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecm7883L Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(3)Section 250

affidavit of the assessee, we find that there was a reasonable explanation given for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay of 412 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2013-14 Mega Venture Developers ... days from the date of the impugned order i.e. 26.02.2016. Despite issuing several notices, the assessee did not furnish any application for condonation of delay of 230 days, and therefore, in the absence of any sufficient cause given by the assessee either in Form

Shree Jewel House Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(30(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1007/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1007/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Shree Jewel House Pvt. V/S. Ito Ward 4(3)(3), Mumbai Ltd. बिधम Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, 303, Kakad Market, 3Rd Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, 306 Kalbadevi Maharishi Karve Road, Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aapcs0590M Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Kiran MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, it has been submitted by the Ld. AR that for the reasons explained in the affidavit for condonation of delay in filing the second appeal, no compliance could be made before Ld. CIT(A) and has, therefore, requested for remanding back the matter

Mr Debraj Shome, Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-, Mumbai

ITA 1863/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Ashutosh, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Ld. D.R

Section 250

refuted the claim of the Assessee. 4. We have given thoughtful considerations to the reasons stated by the Assessee for condonation of delay. The Assessee neither mentioned name of the previous counsel nor filed any document in order to substantiate his claim that lot of disputes have cropped up between

JCIT (OSD), Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Rajasthan Prime Steel Processing Center Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3537/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2016-17 Anand Prakash Singh, Vs. Acit, 4-27 A Site-4, Circle-2, Sahibabad Industrial Area, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201005. Pan: Bbzps5472F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mayank Patwari, Advocate & Shri Akash Ojha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 Order

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

submitted that there was a delay in filing of the appeal to the extent of 238 days for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed along with an affidavit wherein it is mentioned that the assessee has suffered cardiac arrest and relevant records are filed ... satisfied that the same sufficiently justify the delay. The application for condonation of delay is allowed and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that the appellant is an Individual running a proprietorship firm Nandini Processors who is engaged

Uttam Kumar Chetia, Natun Nirmali Gaon vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Dibrugarh

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

ITA 240/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mahabir PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143Section 250

huge delay in filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the Act and secondly, 1st appellate authority is not competent to condone such delay as well as no adequate grounds to cause condonation of delay in filing of Form 10B. 7. Since, the order

Reeta Thakur, Jagdalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Jagdalpur

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

ITA 70/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.70/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Reeta Thakur Jawahar Nagar, Ward-24, Jagdalpur, Baster-494 001 (C.G.) Pan: Bfcpp1218P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-Jagdalpur ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250

/2024, dated 31.01.2025, had observed that a justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income ... Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay of 136 days involved in the present appeal is condoned…………” 3 Reeta Thakur Vs. ITO, Ward Jagdalpur 3. At the time

Shitalben Jyotikumar Raychura, Porbandar vs. ITO, Porbandar

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

ITA 839/RJT/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Mar 2025AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhkhar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

cash deposit. 3. At the outset, we notice that the appeal filed by the assessee is late by 360 days. The assessee filed condonation of delay supported by the Affidavit. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay, which reproduced as under: 1. Being aggrieved by the assessment order ... appeal not in time. There is no mistake of the assessee, and the delay is not deliberate. In view of the situation, we condoned the delay. 5. Facts of the case that the appellant run a small Kariyana Shop in the name of “Gayatri Provision Store”, having small income

Prakash Chand Choudhary Through L/H Sandhya Choudhary, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

ITA 1484/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 69ASection 80C

appeal came to be filed 24 days, after prescribed period of limitation. In this regard, the appellant-applicant has filed an application seeking condonation of delay pleading as under:- “1. After the demise of the assessee i.e. Late Prakash Chand Choudhary, all the responsibilities of business as well as family ... would cause undue hardship to the assessee. In view of the above facts, you are requested to take a lenient view and kindly condone the delay in filing appeal.” 5. The application is supported by the affidavit by the appellant- applicant. 6. Ld. DR for the department has not controverted

Bramvishma Data & Mailing Services Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward- 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 240/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.240/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bramvishma Data & Mailing The Ito बनाम/ Services Pvt.Ltd. Ward-1(1)(2) V/S. C/O. Divyang Shah & Co.,Cas Ahmedabad – 380 015 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Off. C.G. Road Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccb 6364 M अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Maulik Kansara, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Maulik Kansara, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

Income Tax officer Ward 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “AO”] dated 26.12.2018 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Condonation of Delay 2. There is a delay of 19 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee filed a condonation petition along with a sworn affidavit

Shri Modheshwari Bachat Dhiran Ane Grahak Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Banaskantha vs. The ITO, Ward-1(Previously Ward-5), Palanpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1977/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erroneously considered that there is a delay of 314 days in filing the above appeal thereby refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. Whereas the appeal was filed on 18-01-2020 and hearing notices were given ... confirmed that the appeal was filed after a period of 314 days of delay for which no reason sought by the appellant for condonation of delay which is illegal and bad-in-law. I.T.A No. 1977/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 3 Shri Modheshwari Bachat Dhiran Ane Grahak Sakhakri Mandli

Agnee Gas Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1604/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1604/Ahd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18\nAgnee Gas Agency\n13, Sukhram Chambers\nKhodiarnagar Char Rasta\nBapunagar\nAhmedabad - 380 024\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AAHFA 7561 M\nThe Income Tax Officer\nबनाम /\nWard-5(3)(3)\nv/s.\nAhmedabad\nअपीलार्थी/ (Appellant)\nप्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nHardik Vora office\nRevenue by:\nShri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR\nसुनवाई क

For Appellant: Hardik Vora officeFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 271ASection 44ASection 69A

26/03/2025 टी.सी. नायर, व.नि. स. / T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS ITA No.1604/Ahd/2024 Agnee Gas Agency vs. ITO Asst. Year: 2017-18 2 Condonation of Delay 2. At the outset, it is noted that the appeal before us has been filed with a delay of 259 days. In support

Kerele Balwanth Reddy, Ranga Reddy vs. I.T.O., Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 43/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & Explained The Reasons For Delay. Shri, S.K. Gupta, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Referring To The Petition Filed By The Assessee Submitted That, Although The Assessee Has Paid Appeal Fees On 5/10/2023 & Filed Relevant Form- 36 On 06/10/2023 But, Because Of Certain Errors In Digital Signature Certificate (In Short “Dsc”), The Form-36 Could Not Be Uploaded. However, The Assessee Has Obtained Dsc & Filed Digitally Signed Form- 36 On 10/01/2025 With A Delay Of 437 Days. The Said Delay Is Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. He Therefore Submitted That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor For Want Of Any Undue Benefit. Therefore, In The Interest Of Justice, The Delay May Be Condoned.

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

find that there is a delay of 437 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit and explained the reasons for delay. Shri, S.K. Gupta, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the petition filed ... within the time, and also not explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay should not be admitted. 3. We have heard both the parties and considered the reasons of the assessee in the petition for condonation

Kerele Balwanth Reddy, Ranga Reddy vs. ITO., Ward-1, Vikarabad

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

ITA 232/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Parrot Dipankar Charitable Trust, Gram Kakdwip vs. CIT (Exmption), Middleton Road Kolkata

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

ITA 955/KOL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 80G(5)(iii)

delay of 20 days. Ld. CIT(A) in its order has held that the assessee apparently not made any application for the condonation of delay in filing Form-10B belatedly. We have perused the cited decision in the case of Bangarh Educational Welfare Trust vs. ITO (Exemptions