“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

Komar Bedu Gouda, Karwar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 267/PAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.267/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Komar Bedu Gouda, Vs National Faceless At Balerashi,Po.Amadalli, Assessment Centre, . Karwar-581301, Delhi- Uttara Kannada, . Karnataka. Pan/Gir No. Aoopg3843F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144

assessee has filed the sufficient reasons for the delay dealt at para5 of the order. Whereas the CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the assessee appeal in limine. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal ... there could be various reasons for no proper compliance. Whereas the application U/sec 249(3) of the Act for condonation of delay in filling the appeal was filed before the CIT(A) dealt at Page 6 Para 5 of the order. We Considering the facts, provisions and the contents

Ram Swaroop Balai, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle -7, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 225/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 147Section 234ASection 250

appeal hearing. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 149 days. The assessee vide application dated Nil has prayed for condonation of delay. In support of the application for condonation, the assessee has filed an Affidavit which is reproduced hereunder :- 3 Ram Swaroop vs. DCIT ... That due to all this reason the appeal could not be filed within time. 7. That the contents or averment of application for condonation of delay are true and correct and may be treated as part of this affidavit. Palce: Jaipur Date : 26.02.2023 Deponent VERIFICATION 4 Ram Swaroop vs. DCIT

ACIT, Ncr Building, Jaipur vs. Hans Raj Agarwal, Vidhyadhar Nagar Jaipur

39. In view of the above discussion and findings, memorandum of cross objections No 1/JP/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1253/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Vijay, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 250

matter relates to the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Appeal in the form of Cross-objections is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay of 86 days in filing the same. 3. Vide impugned order dated 14.08.2024, the assessment order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer has been ... 1/JPR/2025 13. It may be mentioned here that the appeal in the form of Cross Objections is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. The impugned order passed by NFAC is dated 14.08.2024. Appeal in the form of Cross objections came to be presented

Sarthak Memorial Charitable Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT Exmeption, Jaipur

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

ITA 1211/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Choudharym AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, CIT-DR

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

appeals u/s 80G of the Act for which the ld.AR of the assessee has filed an application dated 04-02-2025 for condonation of delay in connection with above mentioned appeals narrating therein as under:- ‘’1. That the assessee trust filed 4 appeals on 25-09- 2024 against ... cause for delay in filing of appeal. In view of above submission, you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable cause to condone the delay of 23 days and kindly remand back the case to CIT(E), Jaipur, so that proper inquiry can be conducted and substantial justice

Sarthak Memorial Charitable Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 1210/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Choudharym AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, CIT-DR

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

Sarthak Memorial Charitable Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 1209/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Choudharym AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, CIT-DR

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

Sarthak Memorial Charitable Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 1208/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Choudharym AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, CIT-DR

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

Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that

ITA 1192/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Parth Patni, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 131Section 153CSection 250

hearing the bench noted that the appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by one day. The reasons advanced in the prayer for condonation of delay was that while filling the appeal online, the Email OTP was not generated due to technical reasons and thereby it has resulted ... delay of one day. Considering that aspect of the matter the bench condone the delay one day. 3. The Grounds of appeal raised in the cross appeal of the Revenue and assessee are as under:- ITA No.1149/JP/2024 – A.Y. 2017-18 (Revenue) “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Jaipur vs. Shri Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that

ITA 1149/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Parth Patni, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 131Section 153CSection 250

Bhavan Ravat, Raebareli vs. Assessing Authority NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 8/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Bhavan Ravat Assessing Authority V. Vill. Rampur Sudauli, Nfac Raebareli-229301. Delhi Pan:Ajwpr1755Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 270Section 270ASection 5

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NEAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, despite there being sufficient causes with the assessee for not filing the appeal in time as per Section 249(2) of the Income ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erroneously disallowed the condonation of delay, hot acknowledging that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause from filing the appeal in time. The delay was not due to dilatory tactics

Five Force Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Mohali vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh, Aayakar Bhawan

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 865/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Raj Pal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.865/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Five Force Security Solutions P. Ltd. Acit 2(1) बनाम/ Scf No 20, Top Floor Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Phase 5, Mohali (Punjab)-160055 Chandigarh 160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcf-4798-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Shubham (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 19-06-2024 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) On 13-11-2022. The Cpc Made Disallowance Of Late Payment Of Pf / Esi Against Which The Assessee Preferred First Appeal. The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal For Want Of Condonation Of Delay Of 27 Days & Also For Non-Prosecution Of Appeal On The Part Of The Assessee. Aggrieved, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Shubham (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

late payment of PF / ESI against which the assessee preferred first appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 27 days and also for non-prosecution of appeal on the part of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before ... Apparently, there is a mistake in filling correct particulars in Tax Audit Report. The Ld. CIT(A), in our opinion, erred in not condoning small delay of 27 days. Nevertheless we set aside the impugned order and restore the impugned issue back to the file of Ld. AO to verify

Govindji Budhaji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 87/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.87/Ahd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Govindji Budhaji Thakor The Ito Shakar Bhuwan बनाम / Ward-3(3)(2) Makarbiya Wad V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 B/H. Karnavati Club S.G. Highway, Mohmedpura Ahmedabad – 380 058 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Apopc 8837 L (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Manish J. Shah & Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 11/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 12/03/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.02.2024, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Arising Out Of The Ex-Parte Assessment Order Dated 19/11/2019 Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act"], By The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(3)(2), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”].

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 69A

delay of 258 days. 6. On the background of the facts and circumstances, the Departmental Representative (DR) raised no objection to the condonation of delay. 7. Considering the genuine hardship faced by the assessee, we find that the reasons for the delay are bona fide and do not reflect

Shree Sadgurukrupa Buildcon Private Limited, Godhra vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Godhra

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

ITA 973/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Kaushani Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 68

appeal.” 3. At the outset, we observe that the appeal is time barred by 36 days. The assessee filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay vide Affidavit dated 15.02.2025, wherein the assessee stated that the case of the assessee was pursued by his Chartered Accountant but the assessee

Shri Anaval Vibhag Sarvajanik Smashan Gruh, Surat vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1766/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

readjudication.” 3. At the outset, we observe that the appeal is time barred by 86 days. The assessee filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay vide Affidavit Shri Anaval Vibhag Sarvajanik Smashan Gruh vs. CIT(E) Asst.Year –N.A. - 2– dated 11.02.2025, wherein the assessee stated that the notices were issued

Pinal Prafulbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The It, Ward-3(2)(9), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is treated as dismissed

ITA 673/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250

unexplained investment.” 3. At the outset, we observe that the appeal is time barred by 378 days. The assessee filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay vide Affidavit dated 22.02.2025, wherein the assessee stated that the order of NFAC was served on his email address rather than serving

Himasagar Krishna Muthappagari, Tirupati vs. ITO., Ward-2(3), Tirupati

ITA 687/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri M. Uday Teja, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Tirupati months. The Ld. A.R to fortify his aforesaid claim had drawn our attention to the application filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay a/w a supporting “affidavit”, dated 17.07.2024. Also the Ld. AR had pressed into service the medical certificates/prescriptions of the assessee in support of the aforesaid ... factual position. 3. Ms. M. Narmada, Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’), objected to the seeking of the condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant. 4. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties qua the issue of delay involved

Regus Business Centre Hyderabad Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1396/HYD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1396/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Regus Business Centre Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Private Limited Ward – 3 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcr2556C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Sp Chidambaram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate SP ChidambaramFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 144Section 221(1)

Regus Business Centre Hyderabad P Ltd delay of 176 days. The assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay before the learned CIT (A), therefore, the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation. He has relied upon the impugned order

Sanah Begum, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1383/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Section 144

fairness be condoned. 3. Per contra, Shri Sachin Kumar, the Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (for short “DR”) objected to the seeking of the condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant. 4. We have heard the learned Authorized Representatives of both the parties ... Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High court of Chattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur, had observed that a justice oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering

Centre for Social Service and Research, Dindigul vs. CIT (Exemption), Chennai

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

ITA 3305/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3304 & 3305/Chny/2024 Centre For Social Service & Cit (Exemption), Research, Vs. Chennai. Hanumantharayankottai, Dindigul-624 054. Pan: Aacac-6395-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri A.G.Sathyanarayana, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Two Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of Cit(E) Both Dated 21.08.2024, Rejecting Form No.10Ab Filed For Seeking Registration U/S.12Ab & Approval U/S.80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’). 2. There Is A Delay Of 207 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reasons Stated

For Appellant: Shri A.G.Sathyanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 12ASection 80G

hereinafter the ‘Act’). 2. There is a delay of 207 days in filing these appeals. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of these appeals. The reasons stated ITA No.3304 & 3305/CHNY/2024 in the condonation application for belated filing of these appeals ... view that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of these appeals and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing these appeals and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits. 4. At the very outset, we notice that

Centre for Social Service and Research, Dindigul vs. CIT (Exemption), Chennai

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

ITA 3304/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2025

For Appellant: Shri A.G.Sathyanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 12ASection 80G