← 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

Lohith Kumar, Udupi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

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

ITA 2349/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Manish Sowkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Kamble, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)(c)

ground that the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals) was barred by limitation and there was no valid reason for condonation of delay of 1110 days. 3. The ld. counsel pointed out that the assessee has not received any notice of hearing with respect to the penalty ... respect of the penalty proceedings with the departmental authorities. It is settled position of law that in the case of individual assessee, condonation of delay has to be decided with liberal approach. Therefore, we condone the delay of 1110 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and restore

Raj Coop Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Mumbai ITO 22.3.1, Pirmal Chambers

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 508/MUM/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 508/Mum/2025 (Ay 2023-24) (Physical Hearing) Raj Coop Housing Society, Ito, Ward 30(1)(5) Cts Raj Palace 11Th Road, Mumbai बनाम Khar West, Mumbai-400052 Vs Pan : Aaaar 6493 H] अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी /Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 254(1)Section 80ASection 80P

section 80P. Aggrieved the action of CPC, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The assessee in its statement of facts prayed for condonation of delay in filing revised return of income. The ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by holding that as per provision of section 80AC ... eligible for deduction under section 80P, if return of income is not filed within the time prescribed under the Act. Even, condonation of delay in filing revised return of income is not helpful to the assessee. The assessee is eligible for any deduction, if it is not in accordance with

Bethel Christian Fellowship Association, Koppal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Koppal

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

ITA 2186/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Veeranna M Murgod, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Netrapal M.S., D.R
Section 115BSection 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 69A

days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also drawn our attention on the application for condonation of delay filed along with an affidavit dated 11.11.2024 sworn before the notary public, Koppal district stating the reason that the distance from Gangavathi to Bengaluru ... file the appeal belatedly. Bethel Christian Fellowship Association, Koppal Page 3 of 8 3. Ld. D.R. on the other hand opposed for the condonation of delay but could not controvert the submissions made therein. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record

Sree Venugopala Swamy Educational Trust, Bangalore North vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 2183/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Vinaata Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Netrapal M.S., D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

contentions/grounds of appeal. 2. The JCIT(A)/CIT(A) do not have the authority u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act to grant condonation of delay in filing ITR/Form 10BB. 3. The assessee has option only to approach the jurisdictional Commissioner for the condonation of delay in filing ITR/Form 10BB ... other hand supported the order of the authorities below and submitted that neither the AO nor the JCIT(A) have power to condone the delay in filing ITR/Form 10BB and therefore, ld. Addl/JCIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. We have heard the rival submissions

Sharan Foundation, Moga, Punjab vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

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

ITA 254/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar13 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Adv., &
Section 282Section 80Section 80G(5)(iii)

verification of the genuineness of the activities and fulfilment of all conditions laid down under clause (i) to (v) of the section. 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is filed belatedly by 417 (four hundred seventeen) days. The assesseehas filed an application ... condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the delay that application for approval has been filed in form 10AB on 9th July, 2022, which has been rejected vide order dated 13th January, 2023, which was received by the assessee on 16th January, 2023, against which appeal should have been

Janvi Thread Private Limited, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(3), Surat

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

ITA 1007/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat13 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1005/Srt/2024 (Ay 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1006/Srt/2024 (Ay 2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1007/Srt/2024 (Ay 2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Janvi Thread Private Limited, Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3-A, Prathik Apartment, Near Hdfc 1(1)(3), Surat, Room # 113, बनाम Bank, Near Megh Mayur Apartment, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs Parle Point, Surat-395 007 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil [Pan : Aaccj 7343 J] Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 144Section 147Section 254(1)

delay in filing appeal was not intentional or deliberate but due to unavoidable reasons. The Ld. CIT(A) not condone the delay and dismissed appeal as unadmitted. Resultantly, the addition made by Assessing Officer was confirmed. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that there was reasonable cause for condonation ... allowing opportunity. The AO made addition of transaction in various bank account. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO by not condoning the delay in filing appeal before him, resultantly, the appeal was dismissed in limine. Now, before us, the Ld.AR of the assessee has explained the delay

Janvi Thread Private Limted, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(3), Surat

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

ITA 1006/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Surat13 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
Section 144Section 147Section 254(1)

delay in filing appeal was not intentional or deliberate but due to unavoidable reasons. The Ld. CIT(A) not condone the delay and dismissed appeal as unadmitted. Resultantly, the addition made by Assessing Officer was confirmed. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that there was reasonable cause for condonation ... allowing opportunity. The AO made addition of transaction in various bank account. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO by not condoning the delay in filing appeal before him, resultantly, the appeal was dismissed in limine. Now, before us, the Ld.AR of the assessee has explained the delay

Janvi Thread Private Limited, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(3), Surat

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

ITA 1005/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat13 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1005/Srt/2024 (Ay 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1006/Srt/2024 (Ay 2014-15) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1007/Srt/2024 (Ay 2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Janvi Thread Private Limited, Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3-A, Prathik Apartment, Near Hdfc 1(1)(3), Surat, Room # 113, बनाम Bank, Near Megh Mayur Apartment, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs Parle Point, Surat-395 007 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil [Pan : Aaccj 7343 J] Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 144Section 147Section 254(1)

delay in filing appeal was not intentional or deliberate but due to unavoidable reasons. The Ld. CIT(A) not condone the delay and dismissed appeal as unadmitted. Resultantly, the addition made by Assessing Officer was confirmed. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that there was reasonable cause for condonation ... allowing opportunity. The AO made addition of transaction in various bank account. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO by not condoning the delay in filing appeal before him, resultantly, the appeal was dismissed in limine. Now, before us, the Ld.AR of the assessee has explained the delay

Rameshwar Chopra, Amer Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 1447/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Tarun Mittal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

observed that the appeal filed before us is time barred by 456 days. On this issue, the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit duly signed and attested by the previous counsel of the assessee. 3. As per the application and affidavit mentioned (supra), the assessee

Devi Dutt Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Assessment Unit, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1375/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Vikash Rajvanshi, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 10Section 250

that the appeal filed before us is time barred by 326 Days. In response to the same the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. The assessee is a 66 years old person and has severe eye vision trauma since last year. Due to this

Wakeel Ahamad, Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer-2(3), Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 696/LKW/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow13 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2010-11 Mr Wakeel Ahamad Income Tax Officer-2(3) V. Sheeshgarh, Meerganj, Bareilly, Aayakar Bhawan, C.R. Uttar Pradesh-243505. Building, Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Bareilly, (Up)-243001. Pan:Ajcpa9737B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application filed)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 248Section 249(2)Section 69A

appealed against is served. 6.2 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may admit belated application on sufficient cause being shown. Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, giving the reasons for the delay, along with necessary evidences should be filed with Form No. 35 (i.e., form of appeal ... Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) can condone the delay in filing the appeal if genuine reason exists for delay. No doubt, the CIT (A) one should be liberal in dealing with the application for condonation of delay. However, one must at the same time keep in mind that condoning

Kalpeshkumar Jayantilal Patel, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 75/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.Ta. Nos.74-75/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kalpeshkumar Jayantilal Patel, Vs. The Income Tax E-13, Ramkrishna Market, Officer, Mal Godown, Ward-1, Mehsana-384002. Mehsana. [Pan No.Alhpp9324N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Anil Kshatriya, Ar Respondent By: Adjournment Application Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya, ARFor Respondent: Adjournment Application
Section 271ASection 69A

that during the appellate proceedings the assessee has made submission along with the relevant documents & information and also mentioned the reasons for the condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating the ground of appeal on merits. We also

Kalpeshkumar Jayantilal Patel, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 74/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.Ta. Nos.74-75/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kalpeshkumar Jayantilal Patel, Vs. The Income Tax E-13, Ramkrishna Market, Officer, Mal Godown, Ward-1, Mehsana-384002. Mehsana. [Pan No.Alhpp9324N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Anil Kshatriya, Ar Respondent By: Adjournment Application Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya, ARFor Respondent: Adjournment Application
Section 271ASection 69A

that during the appellate proceedings the assessee has made submission along with the relevant documents & information and also mentioned the reasons for the condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating the ground of appeal on merits. We also

Hanning Motors India Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1931/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Revenue by
Section 143(3)Section 92C

order, the assessee engaged a new tax consultant and filed the present appeal without any further delay. 5. 1. A petition for condonation of delay was filed before us, citing genuine reasons beyond the assessee's control. During the hearing, the Departmental Representative (DR) did not raise any objections

Vikram Vasantrao Kale, Ahilyanagar vs. I.T.O Ward-2, Ahilyanagar

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2637/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2636 & 2637/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 Vikram Vasantrao Kale, Ito, Ward – 2, Indira Ice Factory, Vijay Chowk, V/S Ahilyanagar Zenda, Shrigonda, Dist; Ahilyanagar-413701 Maharashtra Pan-Arlpk1168K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 144Section 148

dated 28.03.2022. 2. There is a delay of 17 days in filing of the instant appeals. On perusal of the application for condonation of delay I notice that the said delay has arised due to non communication of impugned oder to assessee as it was e-mailed ... mail id of the previous consultant. After hearing Ld. DR and considering the facts of the case I condone the delay in filing of the instant two appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee has commonly raised following grounds of appeal:- 2 1. On the facts

Vikram Vasantrao Kale, Ahilyanagar vs. I.T.O Ward-2, Ahilyanagar

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2636/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2636 & 2637/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 Vikram Vasantrao Kale, Ito, Ward – 2, Indira Ice Factory, Vijay Chowk, V/S Ahilyanagar Zenda, Shrigonda, Dist; Ahilyanagar-413701 Maharashtra Pan-Arlpk1168K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 144Section 148

dated 28.03.2022. 2. There is a delay of 17 days in filing of the instant appeals. On perusal of the application for condonation of delay I notice that the said delay has arised due to non communication of impugned oder to assessee as it was e-mailed ... mail id of the previous consultant. After hearing Ld. DR and considering the facts of the case I condone the delay in filing of the instant two appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. Assessee has commonly raised following grounds of appeal:- 2 1. On the facts

Subramaniam Saravanakumar, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Ncc-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2953/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2953/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Subramaniam Saravanakumar, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 188, Sukrawarpet Street, Income Tax, Coimbatore 641 001. Non Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore. [Pan:Accps5345Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Raised 14 Grounds In His Appeal & Mainly Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Dismissing The Appeal Without Condoning Delay In Filing The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate drew our attention to page 11 & 12 of the impugned order, the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal explaining the factual reasons in detail. He vehemently argued that the assessee has not received the penalty order to his e-mail ... proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to consider the reasons explained by the assessee afresh, condone the delay and decide the issue on merits in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Palani Gurumurthy, Chennai vs. Non- Corporate Ward - 17(6), Chennai

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

ITA 2952/CHNY/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2952/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Palani Gurumurthy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 10A, Park Lane Paper Mills Road, Non Corporate Ward 17(6), Perambur, Chennai 600 011. Chennai. [Pan:Aihpg8291J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 81 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

year 2012-13. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 81 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay explaining reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay. On perusal of the 2 I.T.A. No.2952/Chny/24 condonation petition and upon

Nilanjana Arvinder Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 6140/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 37(1)

present appeals are delayed by 144 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay, wherein the assessee submitted that the Chartered Accountant handling her case was not well and therefore could not compile the necessary documents to file the 2 ITAs No.6140 & 6167/Mum/2024 ... assessee has also placed on record the copy of her passport. 3. We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag

Pradipta Kumar Guha, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 28(1), New Delhi

ITA 2326/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Jai Bhagwan Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 27A

merit, the assessee has raised a ground that opportunity of hearing was not given by NFAC and the appeal was dismissed without condoning the delay which was sufficiently explained. 3. The ld. DR has opposed the claim of the assessee that the delay was sufficiently explained. However, we find that ... submitted that the notices were issued to a wrong address and before the NFAC while moving the application for condonation of delay similar assertion was made and it appears that without making any factual inquiry and discussion on the averments of the assessee that notices were not duly served, merely