“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

Yum Restaurant India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-27(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14,

ITA 7770/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.5169/िद"ी/2018(िन.व. 2011-12) आअसं.4248/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2012-13) आअसं.7770/िद"ी/2018(िन.व. 2013-14) आअसं.7369 & 7566/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2014-15)

For Appellant: Ms. Mansha BhallaFor Respondent: S/Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR) & Ravinder Yadav, Sr.DR

Section 144C

event assessee’s declaration made under VSVS is not accepted, the Registry shall not insist for filing of application for condonation of delay, if the Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order is filed beyond time on account of delay in communication of outcome under VSVS. [Re. M/s. Nannusamy Mohan

DCIT, Circle-27(2), New Delhi vs. Yum Restaurant India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14,

ITA 5547/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Mansha BhallaFor Respondent: S/Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR) & Ravinder Yadav, Sr.DR

Section 144C

Jai Pal Chowdhary, Hanumangarh vs. ITO, Nohar, Hanumangarh

The appeal is dismissed as unadmitted

ITA 539/JODH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, HonʼBle & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

Section 250

remained upset and due to which the time limit of filing the appeal before ITAT was expired. Your hounour is requested to condone the delay and acknowledge the filing of appeal." However, the assessee has not filed any supporting evidence to substantiate the aforesaid reason. Again, the assessee has filed ... enclosed here with copy of affidavit of the assessee stating the cause of delay in filing the appeal. Your honour is request to condone the delay." 4. From the record, we find that the assessee has neither filed any affidavit nor any material evidence to substantiate its bona fide

Veena Khindri, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

ITA 443/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

that filing of appeal in this case is time barred by 10 days. The Assessee has already filed a letter dated 8.8.2024 for condonation of delay in this case, which is reproduced as under:- 08 August 2024 The Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Sir, Reg: Veena Khindri ... Indra Nagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India, [PAN: ABSPK3032D] Sub: Request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against order of passed u/s 250 by ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 PUNE dated 30.05.2024. 1. This is in regard to delay in filing of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. It is very

Rahul Khindri, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (1), Amritsar

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 37/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 37/Asr/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Rahul Khindri, बनाम A.O., Cpc, 2157, Bazar Sirki Banda, Banglore Katra Dullo, Amritsar Indra Nagar, 143001 स्थधयी लेखध सं./Pan No: Apfpk9150F अपीलधथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) निर्धाररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Rohit Kapoor, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 उदघोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- 1. That The Ld. C1T(A) Vide Order U/S 250(6) Dated 31.07.2023 Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Not Providing The Benefit Of Lower Tax As Per Section 115Bac Due To The Fact That Form 10 Ie Was Not Filed Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S 139(1) I.E. 31.12.2021. 37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 2

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

time barred by 123 days. The Assessee has already filed an affidavit 37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 3 dated 1.2.2024 for condonation of delay in this case, which is reproduced as under:- 37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 5 4. We have considered ... delay should be condoned keeping in view the issue discussed in the letter. 5. The ld. DR had no objection to the condonation of delay. 6. Brief facts of the case, as per the Assessee are as under:- The Assessee Rahul Khindri was an individual during the year under consideration

Jagpal Singh, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ambala

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1046/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Ms. Rattan Kaur, CA and Shri A.K.Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

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”. A.Y.2019-20 6 6. A perusal

Shri Saraswati Kelavani Mandal, Kathlal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nadiad

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

ITA 1912/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1912/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Shri Saraswati Kelavani Mandal, The Income Tax Officer, Patel Jivabhai Dhulabhai, बनामVs Ward-1, . Katulal, Nadiad. Kheda-387630. Pan: Aajts0827Q ( ""यथ" /Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant Assessee By : Shri Girish B. Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.09.2024 Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Mumbai, (Hereinafter Referred As Jcit(A)) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Trust Running Educational Institutions. The Return Of Income For A.Y 2021-22 Was Filed On 09.02.2022, Declaring Total Income At Rs. Nil. In The Return Of Income, The Assessee Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.2,42,88,361/- U/S.10(23C) Of The Act. The Return Of Assessee Was Processed By The Cpc On 09.12.2022 U/S.143(1) Of Asst. Year 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Girish B. Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR

Section 10Section 143(1)

sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal of merely 27 days. 3. The Commissioner(Appeals) has, erroneously denying the request for condonation of delay (27 days only) without appreciating the facts of the case, by nonspeaking order, therefore to be set aside. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) has, erroneously dismissed

Rajya Rakhiv Police Bal Gat Kramank 6 Karmachari Sah Patpedhi Ltd, Dhule vs. ITO Ward 1, Dhule

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

ITA 1221/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare

Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

judicial precedents. Therefore, Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is also dismissed. 10. Ground No.4 has been raised requesting this Tribunal to condone the delay of 54 days in filing the return of income. I however note that there is specific section 119(2)(b) of the Act which provides ... mechanism through which the assessee can file an application to condone the delay in filing the income-tax return on account of reasonable cause and the Board can pass general or special order authorizing any income-tax authority not below the Joint Commissioner of Commissioner (Appeal) to deal with such

Guddennagari Ramakrishna, Kurnool vs. ITO., Ward-1, Kurnool

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1191/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr AR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 69A

filing the instant appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal and considered relevant reasons given by the assessee in the petition filed for condonation of delay. We find that the assessee has stated at that his accountant who ITA.No.1191/Hyd./2024 is responsible for looking after the tax matters ... cannot be examined. Therefore, in our considered view, the reasons given by the assessee does not give any ‘reasonable cause’ so as to condone the delay of 285 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

Yeakub Mondal, Birbhum vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Suri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose subject to above directions

ITA 23/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2018-19 Yeakub Mondal Ito, Ward-3(1), Suri C/O Obaidullah Mondal Bishore, Pobishore Vs Rampurhat, West Bengal- 731238. (Pan: Cnepm3852K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kumarjit Das, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR

Section 250

appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. Appeal of the assessee is time barred by 35 days. In respect of the condonation of delay the assessee has filed an application explaining the 2 Yeakub Mondal, AY: 2018-19 reasons for the delay. Considering the averments made in the said application ... condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shows that there is a delay of 157 days before him. In the interest of natural justice, we condone the said delay. We also find that the assessee

Sayonara Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 18/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: Shri Tirtha Pratim Basu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR

Section 250

appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. Appeal of the assessee is time barred by 1071 days. In respect of the condonation of delay the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. Considering the averments made in the said affidavit, we condone the delay and admit

Snowfall Commercial Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT 11(3), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 1182/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR

Section 250

appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. Both the appeals of the assessee are time barred by 9 days. Separate condonation of delay petitions have been placed in file. Considering the 2 ITA No.1181 & 1182/Kol/2023 Snowfall Commercial Pvt. Ltd., AYs: 2010-11 & 2011-12 averments made in the said applications ... condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 4. A perusal of the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) shows that the assessee has not represented its appeal before both the authorities below. Considering the non-representation before the lower authorities on account

Snowfall Commercial Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 11(3), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 1181/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR

Section 250

Shivaji Vishnupant Vidhate, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 71/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Br Baskaranhon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainshivaji Vishnupant Vidhate Vs. Dcit, Circle 7(1)(1) Flat No. B-3002, Bhoomi Aayakar Bhavan, Paradise, Plot No. 2 & 3, Mumbai. Sector – 11, New Mumbai, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai – 400 705. Pan/Gir No. Aaapv4527F (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250

revenue authorities. 4. From the records, we noticed that assessee has filed a detailed explanation thereby explaining the reason for seeking condonation of delay. The assessee has categorically submitted that the delay in filing the appeal had happened due to gathering of minor details and documentation to support the appeal ... Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC), we are inclined to condone the delay in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly the delay stands condoned. 3 Shivaji Vishnupant Vidhate, Mumbai. 6. Since we have already condoned the delay

Consolidated Infrastructure Compamy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 462/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

said order was downloaded on the same date and steps were taken to file the present appeal with a petition for condonation of delay by bringing all these stated facts on record. In respect of registered email address of the assessee, it was submitted that it had been discontinued ... therefore assessee could not receive any update digitally. On the strength of these submissions, assessee prayed for condonation of delay and admission of the appeal for its meritorious adjudication. However, ld. CIT(A) did not find it appropriate to condone as this did not amount to sufficient and reasonable cause

Vivekrameshchandra Rathod, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-41(4)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 315/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Br Baskaranhon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainvivek Ramesh Chandra Vs. Ito – 41(4)(4) Rathod Room No. 607, Kautilya 503, Ashoka Super Market, Bhawan, Bkc, Bandra Sv Road, Goregoan (W) East, Mumbai – Mumbai. 400051. Pan/Gir No. Azepr0944J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250

delay in filing the appeal before us, and in this regard assessee has 2 Vivek Ramesh Chandra Rathod, Mumbai filed application for seeking condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit has been filed by the assessee. 3. On the other hand Ld. DR contested the said application and relied upon ... Supreme Court of India in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC) we condone the delay in filing the present appeal before us and consequently appeal is admitted to be heard on merits. 5. After having heard the counsels on the merits

Mamta Ramesh Shukla, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 294/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Br Baskaranhon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainmamta Ramesh Shukla Vs. Ito – 27(2)(1) 302, B Wing, Shubham Vashi Rly Stn Bldg, Lavista, Happy Home Chs, Navi Mumbai. Ramnarayan Narkar Marg, Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai – 400075. Pan/Gir No. Aohps1621J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250

that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. Therefore, keeping in view the above principles and the facts of the case we condoned the delay in filing the present appeal. Now the appeal is admitted to be heard on merits. 3. At the very outset, we noticed that ... reiterated the same arguments as were raised by him before the lower authorities and relied upon the contents of the application for seeking condonation of delay for reasons of non appearance before Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that because of ignorance 3 Mamta Ramesh Shukla, Mumbai. assessee could

M/S. Garden View Foods Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 3, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3225/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Ptc India Ltd. Vs Dcit 2Nd Floor, Nbcc Tower, Circle-19(1), Delhi Bhikaji Cama Place, 15, R.K.Puram (Main), New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcp7947F Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit Vs Ptc India Ltd. Circle-19(1), 2Nd Floor, Nbcc Tower, Delhi Bhikaji Cama Place, 15, R.K.Puram (Main), New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcp7947F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv Respondent By Shri D S Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.11.2025

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

assessment year 2018- 19. 2. The appeal of the Revenue is delayed by 461 days. Alongwith appeal memo, a petition is filed for condonation of delay wherein it is stated that due to high pendency of time barring matters, the appeal could not be filed in time. As the delay ... appeal from Ld. Pr. CIT after following the new procedure and thus due to these reasons delay was occurred, He requested for condonation of delay. 3. Heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, the order

Shree Siddheshwar Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Belagavi vs. Assessing Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 302/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 302/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Shree Siddheshwar Co-Op Vs Ito-Ward-6, Civil Hospital Road, Credit Society Limited, . Belagavi-590001. P B Road, Kakati, Karnataka. Belgaum-591113, Karnataka. . Pan .No. Aaifs6553Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Santosh Kumar Dlatthe.Ar Revenue By Shri.Manikandan.S.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of Nfac/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & The Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & 2 Ita. No..302/Pan/2024 Shri Siddeswar Co-Op Society Limited.. Admit The Appeal. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(D) Of The Act.

Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay

Hareshbhai Arjundas Gurbani, Jamnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, WD 2(10), Jamnagar

ITA 611/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.611/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hareshbhai Arjundas Gurbani Aaykar Bhawan, Vs. 109/110 City Aarced, Nr Dsp Jamnagar Bunglow, Tin Batti, Jamnagar 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bqspg3832M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Suresh Tejwani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03/03 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/ 03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha Jm;

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Tejwani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (DR)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

that the appeal is late by 36 days. That Ld AR of the assessee submitted. That the assessee has moved an application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal along with an affidavit. That the main reason for delay in filing of an appeal that the mother ... taking care of the mother in Hospital. Relevant document related to disease is placed on record. The Ld AR requested for the condonation of delay in filing of an appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. DR has not objected the request for condition of delay made by the Ld.AR