← 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

Anita Bhanudas Bhoir, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Kalyan, Mumbai

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

ITA 6882/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Anita Bhanudas Bhoir, Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 Kishna Kunj Niwas, Chinar (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Vs. Chs, Hendrepada Badlapur (W), Centre,/Ito Ward 2(1) Kalyan. Thane-421503. Pan No. Ahlpb 8013 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Vipul Jain
Section 144Section 56(2)(x)

condoning the referred to as Ld. CIT (Appeals)] erred in not condoning the referred to as Ld. CIT (Appeals)] erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. delay in filing the appeal. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 2. That ... counsel for the assessee has submitted an Before us, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted an affidavit along with an application seeking condonation of delay in affidavit along with an application seeking condonation of delay in affidavit along with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal

Sudhanshu Shekhar, Gaya vs. Income Tax Officer, Gaya

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 434/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 69A

Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 70 days. An application along with affidavit seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “I SUDHASHU SHEKHAR Son of SHAMABHU PRASAD having PAN NO. DMRPS5351A resident of Rai Shital ... Medical Report Enclosed) 4. That the said affidavit will be used for filling in appeal before the honourable ITAT, Patna Bench, Patna for condonation of delay late by 68 days.” 1.2. Considering the affidavit as well as the condonation application and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that

Vipul Lallubhai Kukadiya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 1051/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1051/Srt/2024 (Ay 2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Vipul Lallubhai Kukadiya Income Tax Officer, Ward- 126, Gitanagar Society-2, 2(3)(4), Surat, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम Near Sitaram Chawk, Punagam, Majura Gate, Vs Surat-394 101 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Awppk 7950 P] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 44ASection 69A

Tribunal. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee has filed his affidavit in explaining the reasonable and sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that impugned order was passed by Ld. CIT(A) on 06.08.2024. The assessee was out of station ... Vipul L Kukadiya 4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue, on the plea of condonation of delay that the Bench may take appropriate view in accordance with law. However, on the merit of case, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits

Tajshree Autowheels Private Limited, Nagpur vs. ACIT Circle-4, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 400/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Madhav VichoreFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

that there is a delay of 446 day in filing the present appeal. In this regard, the assessee furnished an application seeking condonation of delay which in the form of Affidavit. The contents of the said Affidavit is enumerated below for ready reference:– “1) The accompanying appeal is preferred against ... order is absolutely bad in law. PRAYER: It is, therefore, most humble prayed that this Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to - i) Condone the delay of 446 days occurred in filling the accompanying appeal, in the interest of justice; 4 Tajshree Autowheels Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.400/Nag./2024 ii) Grant

Bank of India, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 68/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok KanodiyaFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 201Section 201(1)

days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: “Subject: Filing of Affidavit for Condonation of Delay in ITA No. 68/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year 2012-13)-TAN: JPRBD01809 D Respected Sir/Madam, I, Mahendra ... filed by Bank of India, having TAN No.JPRBD01809 D. As per the said direction, I am hereby filing an affidavit seeking condonation of delay along with supporting documents. The delay in filing the appeal was due to non receipt of order passed by CIT APPEAL FACELESS. I humbly request

Bank of India, Jaipur vs. CIT Facless, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 17/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok KanodiyaFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 201Section 201(1)

days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: “Subject: Filing of Affidavit for Condonation of Delay in ITA No. 68/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year 2012-13)-TAN: JPRBD01809 D Respected Sir/Madam, I, Mahendra ... filed by Bank of India, having TAN No.JPRBD01809 D. As per the said direction, I am hereby filing an affidavit seeking condonation of delay along with supporting documents. The delay in filing the appeal was due to non receipt of order passed by CIT APPEAL FACELESS. I humbly request

Mitalben Rahulkumar Shah, Anand vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Anand, Anand

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

ITA 1637/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Assessing Officer, hence, in the interest of justice the matter is remanded to Assessing Officer for conducting assessment de-novo. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer failing which the Assessing Officer would be at liberty to initiate penalty proceeding as per the provisions of the Act.

submit any reply. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that assessee failed to give the sufficient reason for condonation of delay in fling the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, as not maintainable. I also find that assessee

Bagla Agro Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2204/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 270A

assessee and finally the appeal was filed with 174 days delays. 03. The ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the condonation of delay on the ground that the delay is not properly explained. 04. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find

Bagla Agro Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2203/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 270A

assessee and finally the appeal was filed with 174 days delays. 03. The ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the condonation of delay on the ground that the delay is not properly explained. 04. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find

Sadashiv B Dalawai, Raibag vs. Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit, Delhi

ITA 307/PAN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 307/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sadashiv B Dalawai At Post Shiragur Tal.: Raibag, Dist. Belgaum Pan : Bdrpd7066A . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Income Tax Officer/Itd, Belgaum/New Delhi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mrs Viramma Muranal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/10703226271(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 21/09/2022 Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21[‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mrs Viramma Muranal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 68Section 80G

filed on 20/04/2023 with a delay of 210 days. The said appeal was neither accompanied therewith a petition for condonation of delay nor an affidavit stating therein circumstance due to which said delay was occurred. Faced with the situation, the Ld. NFAC rejected to entertain the appeal on a technical

Nitinkumar Manubhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(2)(8), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1159/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1159/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Nitinkumar Manubhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward- 23, Patel Faliya, Varachha Road, 3(2)(8), Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, बनाम Nana Varachha, Surat-395 006 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Vs [Pan : Abypp 4221 H] Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 115BSection 250Section 254(1)

being heard to assessee. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. CIT-DR) for the Revenue, on the plea of condonation of delay submits that Ld. AR of the assessee has made general submission. When the notices were served/or responded/complied though only through seeking adjournment, thus ... rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through order of lower authorities carefully. Firstly, we are considering the plea of condonation of delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. We find that main submission of Ld. AR of the assessee is that at the time of filing first appeal

Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Gonda vs. Addl./Joint/Deputy/ACIT/ITO, NFAC

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 45/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rajesh Kumar Tiwari V. Addl./Joint/Deputy/Acit/Ito, Tharakki Patti Nfac, Delhi Gorwaghat, Gonda Tan/Pan:Ajapt7765Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

there is a delay of 433 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application dated 20.01.2025 for condonation of delay duly supported by an Affidavit and Medical Certificate, stating therein that the assessee was ill during the relevant period. Therefore, the appeal could ... delay being condoned. 9. In view of the prayer made by the Assessee and no objection by the ld. D.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 10. Since the order passed by NFAC was an ex-parte order, the ld. Senior

Laxmi Siddharth Transmissions LLP, Zizamabad vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Nizamabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1247/HYD/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A. Harish, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 203ASection 205Section 220(2)

appeal of assessee in limine as the explanation offered by the assessee was general in nature and do not qualify for the condonation of delay in absence of any plausible reasons. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ... parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of more than 300 days on the ground that reasons given by the assessee for not filing the appeal does not give any ‘sufficient

Mubarak Store, Port Blair vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 3(2), Port Blair

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

ITA 1502/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Mubarak Store Acit, Circle-3(2), Kolkata Aberdeen Bazar, Port Blair, Vs Union Territory Of Andaman & Nicobar Island-744101. (Pan: Aaefm8793J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Rama Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 250

appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. Appeal of the assessee is time barred by 220 days. A separate application for condonation of delay dated 03.07.2024 has been placed in 2 Mubarak Store AY: 2017-18 file. Considering the averments made in the application, we condone the delay and admit

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata vs. Emas Expressway Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1162/KOL/2023[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2025AY 2005-2006

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 250

Revenue after condoning delay in filing appeal for genuine reasons as mentioned above.” 1.1 Considering the reasons spelt out in the petition for condonation of delay, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. This appeal arises from order passed u/s 250 of the Income

M/S. C M Bright Bars Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT-5, Mumbai

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

ITA 2263/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 263

days After covid delay (01.03.2022 to 29.04.2024 ) 701 days Total delay period 1802 days 4. Assessee has moved an application for seeking condonation of delay. The contents of application are extracted below:- 1] That I am Jugraj Chunilal Sanghvi is directors in the Company CM Bright Bars ... ITAT in the case of M/s. C. M. Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 22 - 32/Mum/2024 dated 10.05.2024 wherein the condonation of delay was allowed in the same situation. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR opposed the arguments of Ld. AR and submitted that no sufficient cause

Ashish Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2935/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Bleasstt. Year: 2013-14 Carlsberg India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Tds Circle 4Th Floor, Rectangel No. 1, Gurugram, Commercial Complex, Haryana D-4, Saket, New Delhi – 17 (Pan: Aajcs8454J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By : Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 201(1)Section 250

again filed the appeal before the CIT(A) on 20.1.2022 explaining the erroneous dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) alongwith the condonation of delay application. However, vide order dated 28.2.2025 by the CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-3 Bengaluru for AY 2014-15 (i.e. on the same facts ... fully satisfied that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee in filing the belated appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, I condone the delay in dispute and remit back the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with the 2 | P a g e directions to decide

Shri Salimbhai Satarbhai Gajiyani, Maliya Hatina, Junagadh vs. The ITO Ward 2, Junagadh

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

ITA 881/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं /.Ita No.881/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Salimbhai Satarbhai Gajiyani Ito, Ward-2 बनाम Prop. Of Raj Enterprise Jungadh. Opp: High School Vs. Station Road, Malia Hatina Junagadh. Pan : Afppg 1405 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld.Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 5

barred by limitation by 87 days. The assessee stated the reasons for delay, and requested the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay. The assessee stated that because of the mistake of the tax consultant of the assessee, the appeal could not be filed on time. However ... condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee, on account of delay. The ld. Counsel submitted that because of the mistake of the tax consultant of the assessee, the delay of 87 days has occurred, in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT( A), which may kindly

Smt. Santuben Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 2058/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 48

passing the impugned order, ex-parte. 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in not condoning the delay in filing the Appeal before the CIT(A). ITA Nos. 2057-2058/Ahd/2024 Asst.Year 2016-17 - 2– 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred ... 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 appeals of the assessee. We also find that assessee has not complied even before

Smt. Santuben Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 2057/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 48

passing the impugned order, ex-parte. 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in not condoning the delay in filing the Appeal before the CIT(A). ITA Nos. 2057-2058/Ahd/2024 Asst.Year 2016-17 - 2– 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred ... 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 appeals of the assessee. We also find that assessee has not complied even before