← 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

Thenmaipakkam Primary Agricultural Co-Op Bank Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. It, Ncc-22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 2899/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.: 2899/Chny/2024 यनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Thenmelpakkam Perimary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Bank V. Non-Corp Circle-22(1), Limited, Thenmelpakkam Village Tambaram. Anjur Post, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu – 603 204. [Pan: Aacat7857-R] अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. G.Akash, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Gurugram, Dated 28.06.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 75 Days In Appeal Filed By The Assessee, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Reasons For Delay Has Been Filed. After Considering The Petition

For Appellant: Shri. G.Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80P

outset, we find that there is a delay of 75 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons for delay has been filed. After considering the petition :-2-: ITA. No: 2899/Chny/2024 filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties ... ld.CIT(A), the assessee is before us. 5. The ld.AR brought to our notice that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the return of income by the assessee has been filed before the ld.CCIT-1, Chennai on 25.02.2025 by explaining the reasons for delay

Subbaiah Vairamani, Madurai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1, Madurai

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

ITA 2380/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2380/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Subbaiah Vairamani, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 134, North Market Street, Income Tax, Madurai 625 001. Corporate Circle 1, [Pan:Abrpv9397H] Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. & Shri R.S. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 24 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A., &For Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 24 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, 2 I.T.A. No.2380/Chny/24 we find the reasons stated

Priyal Jatin Manik, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 34(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 396/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Shah and Ms. Bhavisha Jain, ARsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 144Section 250Section 69

outset, we note that there is a delay of 418 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. In the said petition, it is submitted by the assessee that she was a salaried employee working ... considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay to take up the matter for adjudication

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Garg Alumino Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes as

ITA 3849/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 250(6)

more than 1050 days before the Ld. CIT(A). The reason being sufficient, therefore, it was prayed before the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. Further, it is seen that despite of issue of several notices, assessee has failed to make any compliance ... Under these circumstances and the interest of justice, we find that the reason given by the assessee for delay has sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). As the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merits

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Hridey Vikram Bhatia, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3173/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Goyal, Acit, Circle-49(1), A-1/102, Ground Floor, New Delhi Janak Puri, Delhi Pan: Aaapg4996R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80G

surmise and conjecture and is totally busted in the face of facts and circumstances of case and is liable to be deleted.” 5. Condonation of delay in filling the appeal: The appellant has also petitioned for condonation of delay in filling the appeal, stating as under: Appeal was supposed

Pact Foundation, Goa vs. CIT, Exemptions, Bengaluru

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

ITA 311/PAN/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Mar 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 311/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2024-25) Pact Foundation, Vs Cit (Exemptions), Unity Building Annex, F1,Pirazona Moria, Bardez . Mission Road, Aldona.S.O, Bangalore-560027, Jasmine Plaza, Karnataka. North Goa-403508 . Goa. Pan .No. Aaftp2682J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By None(Letter 4-03-2025) Revenue By Shri.Captain Pradeep Arya.Dr

Section 12A

delay of 19 days 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 and admit the appeal

Manoj Kumar Yadav, Siwan vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Siwan

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

ITA 439/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

Yadav. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 60 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as follows: “I. Manoj Kumar Yadav, the appellant in the above-mentioned appeal, hereby acknowledge receipt ... have duly noted the following defects pointed out in the appeal: 1. The appeal is time-barred by 60 days, and condonation of delay has not been filed. The reasons for delay are as follows: a. Medical Grounds: During the period immediately preceding the due date for filing the appeal

Damodar Prasad Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Jaipur

ITA 65/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250

heard on merits, but Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the same in limine, even though there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 7. Ld. DR for the department has referred to the assessment order and pointed out that the appellant did not participate even in the assessment proceedings ... despite several opportunities and issuance of notices, and as such, there was no sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal before Learned CIT(A). Accordingly, Learned DR has urged that there is no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. 8. A perusal

Kuldeep Singh Shekhawat, Kota vs. ITO W-2(1), Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

found that the appeal of the assessee was time barred by 292 days. For this delay the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit duly attested. Before we proceed to decide the matter substantively, we need to address the issue of delay condonation. We have ... assessee before the lower authorities and the affidavits filed by the assessee and his new counsel, we deem it fit to condone the delay of 292 days in filing of appeal. 5. It is observed that during the year under consideration the assessee sold property situated at Village Deoli Arab

Mohammed Shafi, Bundi vs. ACIT, Circle-1 Kota, Kota

18. Consequently, this appeal is also hereby dismissed

ITA 208/JPR/2024[BLOCK PERIOD FROM 1989-90 TO 1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Sharma, Assistant from the Office of ARFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 158BSection 254

beyond prescribed period of limitation. Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the submissions put forth by the appellant on the point of condonation of delay as he was of the view that the assessee had failed to establish any sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeals ... same came to be filed by 14-12-2017. 15. Ld. CIT(A) considered the ground furnished by the appellant seeking condonation of delay that he had no knowledge of penalty order and that he came to know about the same when notice for recovery was issued by Tax Recovery

Mohammed Shafi, Bundi vs. ACIT, C-1, Kota

18. Consequently, this appeal is also hereby dismissed

ITA 207/JPR/2024[BLOCK PERIOD FROM 1989-90 TO 1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Sharma, Assistant from the Office of ARFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 158BSection 254

beyond prescribed period of limitation. Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the submissions put forth by the appellant on the point of condonation of delay as he was of the view that the assessee had failed to establish any sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeals ... same came to be filed by 14-12-2017. 15. Ld. CIT(A) considered the ground furnished by the appellant seeking condonation of delay that he had no knowledge of penalty order and that he came to know about the same when notice for recovery was issued by Tax Recovery

Shree Nityanandswami Education Trust, Dharmaj Tarapur Road Nar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, DCIT (Exemption) Ahmedbad

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

ITA 1421/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Panchal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154

section 11 and 12 of the Act on ground of Form 10B filed beyond due date is not correct as CBDT has already condone the delay as per Para 4(i) of Circular 10/2019 dt. 22.05.2019. So it is requested to issue the order to jurisdictional officer to accept rectification ... adjudicate the matter on merits but had dismissed the Shree Nityanandswami Education Trust vs. ACIT Asst. Year –2016-17 - 3– appeal without condoning the delay of 91 days in filing of the appeal. He explained that the reason for delay was duly explained in Form No. 35. The assessee

Rishikesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2431/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 245Section 250Section 250(4)

Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 280 days. An application along with affidavit seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “Affidavit of Mr. Bikash Chandra Jana son of Sri Haripada Jana working for gain ... appeal under the circumstances beyond the control and knowledge of the assessee. 8. The assessee pray for the admission of appeal and condone the delay caused in filing for the cause of natural justice.” 1.2. Considering the affidavit as well as the condonation application and the reasons stated therein

M/S. Emerald Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1043/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 1837 days. An application along with appeal memo seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee for condoning the delay stating as follows: “1. The appeal in this case was erroneously filed in the name ... month of the Tribunal’s order, hence the same was stated to be filed in time. 1.3 We have considered the application seeking condonation of delay and find that there is sufficient cause for the delay. Hence, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication

Rolta India Ltd Through Mamta Binani Irp, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle -1(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6976/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta, AR
Section 143(1)

raised the following ground of appeal:- “The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in not condoning the delay of 503 days in filing the appeal and dismissing the same.” 2 ITA No.6976/Mum/2024 - Rolta India Ltd. 2. The assessee is a public limited ... There was a delay of 503 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee filed a petition condoning the delay along with the affidavit from the Executive Director, the reasons submitted by the assessee before the CIT(A) is extracted as below: “1. Rolta India Ltd started

Kuber Khaini Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and

ITA 885/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

sufficient cause which was beyond the control of the assessee. We have heard both the counsels on the issue of condonation of delay. In our considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the cross objections. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the cross objections

Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Valsad vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vapi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 632/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.625/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 250

assessee submitted that the delay of 63 days in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. Therefore, the assessee requested to condone the delay in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned Commissioner of Income-tax - Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue submitted assessee ... find that assessee was neither negligent not deliberate in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay would constitute sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vapi vs. Radha Madhav Eco Industrial Park, Vapi

ITA 626/SRT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) Vs. The Acit, Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle - 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District - Valsad – 396191, Gujarat स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District - Valsad - 396191, Gujarat स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.625/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp - Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District - Valsad – 396191, Gujarat स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp - Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District - Valsad - 396191, Gujarat स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 250

assessee submitted that the delay of 63 days in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. Therefore, the assessee requested to condone the delay in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned Commissioner of Income-tax Departmental Representative (Id. CIT-DR) for the revenue submitted assessee ... find that assessee was neither negligent not deliberate in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay would constitute sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vapi vs. Radha Madhav Eco Industrial Park, Vapi

ITA 625/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023

Section 139Section 250

assessee submitted that the delay of 63 days in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. Therefore, the assessee requested to condone the delay in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned Commissioner of Income-tax Departmental Representative (Id. CIT-DR) for the revenue submitted assessee ... find that assessee was neither negligent not deliberate in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay would constitute sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing

Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vapi vs. ACIT, Centarl Circle-1, Vapi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 41/SRT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.625/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 250

assessee submitted that the delay of 63 days in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. Therefore, the assessee requested to condone the delay in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned Commissioner of Income-tax - Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue submitted assessee ... find that assessee was neither negligent not deliberate in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay would constitute sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing