← 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

Shree Rajendra Suri Sah Sakh Santha Myd, Dhar vs. The ITO, Dhar

ITA 784/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 28

considered by ITAT. Therefore, in present matters, the CIT(A) should be directed to give the benefit of ITAT’s order for condonation of delay and the CIT(A) be further directed to decide the assessee’s first-appeals on merit. Accordingly, Ld. AR prayed to re-store these matters ... days in filing the appeal for A.Y.2013-14 & 1693 days in filing the appeal for A.Y.2014-15. The assesee has filed applications for condonation of delay which are supported by affidavits of the Chairman of the assessee society. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that an FIR was registered

Shree Rajendra Suri Sah Sakh Santha Myd, Rajgarh, Dhar vs. The ITO, Dhar

ITA 783/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 28

considered by ITAT. Therefore, in present matters, the CIT(A) should be directed to give the benefit of ITAT’s order for condonation of delay and the CIT(A) be further directed to decide the assessee’s first-appeals on merit. Accordingly, Ld. AR prayed to re-store these matters ... days in filing the appeal for A.Y.2013-14 & 1693 days in filing the appeal for A.Y.2014-15. The assesee has filed applications for condonation of delay which are supported by affidavits of the Chairman of the assessee society. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that an FIR was registered

Shree Rajendra Suri Sah Sakh Santha Myd, Rajgarh, Dhar vs. The ITO, Dhar

ITA 782/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 28

considered by ITAT. Therefore, in present matters, the CIT(A) should be directed to give the benefit of ITAT’s order for condonation of delay and the CIT(A) be further directed to decide the assessee’s first-appeals on merit. Accordingly, Ld. AR prayed to re-store these matters ... days in filing the appeal for A.Y.2013-14 & 1693 days in filing the appeal for A.Y.2014-15. The assesee has filed applications for condonation of delay which are supported by affidavits of the Chairman of the assessee society. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that an FIR was registered

Shree Rajendra Suri Sah Sakh Santha Myd, Rajgarh, Dhar vs. The DCIT-1(1), Indore

ITA 781/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 28

considered by ITAT. Therefore, in present matters, the CIT(A) should be directed to give the benefit of ITAT’s order for condonation of delay and the CIT(A) be further directed to decide the assessee’s first-appeals on merit. Accordingly, Ld. AR prayed to re-store these matters ... days in filing the appeal for A.Y.2013-14 & 1693 days in filing the appeal for A.Y.2014-15. The assesee has filed applications for condonation of delay which are supported by affidavits of the Chairman of the assessee society. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that an FIR was registered

Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 1529/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-VH a
Section 12ASection 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of 2 Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust the assessee filed application for condonation of delay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit :- “1. The assessee trust was incorporated on 29/10/1994 ... secretary.In support of the contentions so raised the Authorized person has filed an affidavit to support the contentions raised in the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. I say that before 23/11/2024, the assessee trust did not receive on E-mail nor in any physical form

Arif Munir, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer-(2)(1)(2), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Arif Munir V. The Ito(2)(1)(2) 13/397, Vip Road Kanpur Near Green Park Civil Lines, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afjpm1226J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Pranendra Mirdha, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 03 2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 28.02.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 30.07.2017, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.5,92,280/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, In Response To The Queries Raised By The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Submission On Behalf Of The Assessee Was That Rs.2,44,000/- Was Deposited In His Bank Account Maintained With Hdfc Bank Limited Out Of His & His Wife’S Past Savings. Not Being Satisfied With The Reply Furnished

For Appellant: Shri Pranendra Mirdha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 154Section 271ASection 69ASection 80C

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 03.01.2025 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit, stating therein that the impugned order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Kolkata was received by the assessee on 28.02.2024. However ... view of the prayer made by the Assessee, duly supported by an Affidavit and no objection by the Ld. Sr. D.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 8. During the course of hearing before me, the Ld. A.R. submitted that

Shri Ishwar Hari Charitable Trust, Sangrur vs. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

ITA 475/CHANDI/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri T.N.Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5Section 80G

also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction ... looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss”. ITA 719/CHD/2022 & ITA 475/CHD/2023

Mohammed Munim Prop. M.N. Enterprises, Ludhiana vs. Pr. C.I.T., Ludhiana

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 176/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate ) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kusum Bansal (CIT )- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

wrong advice of earlier counsel. The assessee was not much educated and acted in good faith. Though Ld. CIT-DR opposed condonation of delay, however, keeping in mind the principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji ... condone the delay and proceed for disposal of the appeal on merits. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and made out a case of one of the possible views by Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT-DR also advanced arguments and submitted that Ld. AO failed to make requisite enquiries. Having

Shri Ishwar Hari Charitable Trust, Snagrur vs. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

ITA 719/CHANDI/2022[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं/. Ita No. 719/Chd/2022 &

For Appellant: Shri T.N.Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5Section 80G

also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction ... looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss”. 5. Ld. DR has relied upon

Sh. Surinder Paul Singh, Derabassi vs. ITO Ward-5(2), Chandigarh

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 487/CHANDI/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.487/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Surinder Paul Singh Ito Ward 5(2) Village Dera Jagadhari Chandigarh-160017 बनाम/ Vs. Ward No17, Post Office Derabassi, Punjab-140507 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aqhps-6902-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Aman Parti (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Chandigarh [Cit(A)] Dated 03-09-2019 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 31-03-2014. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 936 Days In The Appeal. The Ld. Ar Sought Condonation Of Delay & Tabulated That Excluding Covid-9 Pandemic Lockdown Period, The Effective Delay Is Only For 132 Days (02-

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. AmanFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

registry has noted delay of 936 days in the appeal. The Ld. AR sought condonation of delay and tabulated that excluding Covid-9 pandemic lockdown period, the effective delay is only for 132 days (02- 11-2019 to 13-03-2020). The Ld. AR drew attention to the fact that ... assessee was facing adverse medical conditions which led to delay in the appeal. Though Ld. Sr. DR opposed condonation of delay, however, keeping in mind the guiding principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji

Swargiya Tatya Bapat Smriti Samiti, Pune vs. CIT Exemptions, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 61/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.60 & 61/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: N.A. Swargiya Tatya Bapat Smriti V The Commissioner Of Samiti, S Income Tax(Exemption), 3Rd Floor, Bhargav Sadan, Pune. Rushi Marg, Chinchwad, Pune – 411019. Pan: Aacts6161L Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani –Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S.12A & U/S.80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Respectively.

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 1.3 Ld.AR for the assessee filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay of 162 days in filing appeal before ITAT. We have perused the condonation petition and we are convinced that there is reasonable cause

Swargiya Tatya Bapat Smriti Samiti, Pune vs. CIT Exemptions, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 60/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.60 & 61/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: N.A. Swargiya Tatya Bapat Smriti V The Commissioner Of Samiti, S Income Tax(Exemption), 3Rd Floor, Bhargav Sadan, Pune. Rushi Marg, Chinchwad, Pune – 411019. Pan: Aacts6161L Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani –Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S.12A & U/S.80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Respectively.

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 1.3 Ld.AR for the assessee filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay of 162 days in filing appeal before ITAT. We have perused the condonation petition and we are convinced that there is reasonable cause

Hudhyashwar Nagari Sahakari Path Sansta Maryadit, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 12/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.12/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Hudhyashwar Nagari Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Nashik. Sahakari Path Sansta Maryadit, Samarth Apartment, Sramik Nagar, Satpur, Nashik- 422012. Pan : Aabth3975L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 30.10.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 144 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2017-18 Framed On 28.11.2019 By The Ito, Wart-1(1), Nashik.

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 144

Nashik. 2 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 4 days in filing of the instant appeal. Application for condonation of delay has been filed and considering the contents of the same, we find that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in filing the appeal ... time. We accordingly condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment order has been framed u/s 144 of the Act and the assessee could not furnish the details to explain the source of alleged cash deposit

Shri Mahalaxmi Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2702/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2701 & 2702/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2017-18 Shri Mahalaxmi Nagari Vs. Ito, Ward-8(3), Pune. Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, S.No.79, Samartha Nagar, Main Road, Navi Sangvi- 411061. Pan : Abnfs2464G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 09.06.2023 & 15.05.2023 Which Are Arising Out Of The Assessment Orders U/S 143(3) & 144 Of The Act For Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2017-18 Framed On 16.12.2017 & 17.12.2019 By The Ito, Wart-8(4), Pune Respectively. 2. When The Case Was Called For, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Even On Previous Date Of Hearing Fixed On 23.01.2025 & 2 13.02.2025 None Appeared. We Therefore Proceed To Adjudicate Both The Appeals With The Able Assistance Of Ld. Departmental Representative & Available Records.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 143(3)

applicant is a Manager of Co- operative Housing Society which is the assessee. As per the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, the committee members are not well versed with the tax laws and are dependent upon the tax consultant and for appointment of such tax consultant ... Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Kattji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 559 days and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 4. A perusal of the records indicates that the impugned order is ex-parte

Shri Mahalaxmi Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(3) Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2701/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2701 & 2702/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2017-18 Shri Mahalaxmi Nagari Vs. Ito, Ward-8(3), Pune. Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, S.No.79, Samartha Nagar, Main Road, Navi Sangvi- 411061. Pan : Abnfs2464G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 09.06.2023 & 15.05.2023 Which Are Arising Out Of The Assessment Orders U/S 143(3) & 144 Of The Act For Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2017-18 Framed On 16.12.2017 & 17.12.2019 By The Ito, Wart-8(4), Pune Respectively. 2. When The Case Was Called For, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Even On Previous Date Of Hearing Fixed On 23.01.2025 & 2 13.02.2025 None Appeared. We Therefore Proceed To Adjudicate Both The Appeals With The Able Assistance Of Ld. Departmental Representative & Available Records.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 143(3)

applicant is a Manager of Co- operative Housing Society which is the assessee. As per the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, the committee members are not well versed with the tax laws and are dependent upon the tax consultant and for appointment of such tax consultant ... Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Kattji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 559 days and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 4. A perusal of the records indicates that the impugned order is ex-parte

ACIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Hyderabad vs. Amr India Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, Cross Objection No

ITA 535/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)

filing the cross-objections for both the assessment years i.e., 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, for which, the assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay in filing the cross objections before the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that assessee could not file the cross objections within the time ... cross objections may be condoned. 21. The Learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposed the petitions filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing cross objections and submitted that the reasons given by the assessee in their affidavits did not come under any ‘reasonable cause’ as provided

ACIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Hyderabad vs. Amr India Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, Cross Objection No

ITA 534/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)

filing the cross-objections for both the assessment years i.e., 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, for which, the assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay in filing the cross objections before the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that assessee could not file the cross objections within the time ... cross objections may be condoned. 21. The Learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposed the petitions filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing cross objections and submitted that the reasons given by the assessee in their affidavits did not come under any ‘reasonable cause’ as provided

General Motors India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurgaon, Haryana

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

ITA 4385/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 General Motors India Private Vs. Assessment Unit Limited, Office No.3-102-B 3Rd Income Tax Department, Flooor, We Work Blue One The Deputy Commissioner Square, 246, Phase Iv, Udyog Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana Gurgaon, Pin: 1220 16 Haryana Pan No. Aaacg8371P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Kashish Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, SR. DR
Section 4

assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shall place such

Bikram Singh, South West vs. ACIT, Delhi

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

ITA 4319/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 4

assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shall place such

India Steel Summit Private Limited, India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3930/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 India Steel Summit Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, 2F-2G, Ecotech Iii, Income Tax, Circle-10(1), Udyog Kendra, Surajpur S.O New Delhi I.A. Surajpur, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Gr. Noida, Up Pin: 201 306 Pan No. Aakcs7687N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Kashish Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, SR. DR
Section 4

assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shall place such