← 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

Balasaheb Ganpat Jare, Beed vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2325/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 249Section 250Section 69A

case has set-aside the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to decide the appeal on merits after condoning the delay of 202 days. Therefore, it was prayed before the Bench to set-aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and it was further requested ... direct Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay of 202 days and decide the appeal on merits. 8. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue did not raised any serious objection to the request of the assessee. 9. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides

Balasaheb Ganpat Jare, Beed vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2324/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 249Section 250Section 69A

case has set-aside the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to decide the appeal on merits after condoning the delay of 202 days. Therefore, it was prayed before the Bench to set-aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and it was further requested ... direct Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay of 202 days and decide the appeal on merits. 8. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue did not raised any serious objection to the request of the assessee. 9. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides

Sathyanarayana Konda, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1138/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: C.A. K. HemalathaFor Respondent: : Shri Bose Babu Ali, DR
Section 144Section 44A

There is a delay of 61 days, 274 days and 366 days in filing the 3 appeals. The assessees have filed petitions for condonation of delay supported by the affidavits. 3. We have heard the learned AR as well as the learned DR on the condonation of delay. The assessee ... assessee which has caused the delay in filing the present appeals. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR has objected to the condonation of delay in filing these appeals. 6. Having considered the reasons and cause explained by the assessees in the respective petitions for condonation of delay

Konda Muralidhar Rao, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1137/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: C.A. K. HemalathaFor Respondent: : Shri Bose Babu Ali, DR
Section 144Section 44A

There is a delay of 61 days, 274 days and 366 days in filing the 3 appeals. The assessees have filed petitions for condonation of delay supported by the affidavits. 3. We have heard the learned AR as well as the learned DR on the condonation of delay. The assessee ... assessee which has caused the delay in filing the present appeals. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR has objected to the condonation of delay in filing these appeals. 6. Having considered the reasons and cause explained by the assessees in the respective petitions for condonation of delay

Surekha Konda, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1136/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: C.A. K. HemalathaFor Respondent: : Shri Bose Babu Ali, DR
Section 144Section 44A

There is a delay of 61 days, 274 days and 366 days in filing the 3 appeals. The assessees have filed petitions for condonation of delay supported by the affidavits. 3. We have heard the learned AR as well as the learned DR on the condonation of delay. The assessee ... assessee which has caused the delay in filing the present appeals. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR has objected to the condonation of delay in filing these appeals. 6. Having considered the reasons and cause explained by the assessees in the respective petitions for condonation of delay

Nu Pharmalogics Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals in ITA

ITA 1165/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1165/Hyd/2019 & 302/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Nu Pharmalogics (P) Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-16(2) Pan:Aaccn2913J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Spg Mudaliar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/02/2025

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri SPG Mudaliar, DR
Section 143(2)

appeal. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material available on record. The assessee has filed the petition for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of Director of the assessee company which read as under: Page ... Pharmalogics P Ltd 4.1 Considering the cause of delay as explained by the assessee, we hereby condone the delay of 186 days in filing the appeal subject to a cost of Rs.2000/- to be paid to the Prime Ministers’ National Relief Fund. The assessee is directed to deposit the cost

Nu Pharmalogics Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals in ITA

ITA 302/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

appeal. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material available on record. The assessee has filed the petition for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of Director of the assessee company which read as under: Page ... Pharmalogics P Ltd 4.1 Considering the cause of delay as explained by the assessee, we hereby condone the delay of 186 days in filing the appeal subject to a cost of Rs.2000/- to be paid to the Prime Ministers’ National Relief Fund. The assessee is directed to deposit the cost

Lakshmi Mata Himghar Pvt Ltd, Naisarai, Arambag vs. ACIT Cir-23(1), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 913/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Circle-23(1), Lakshmi Mata Himghar Pvt. Hooghly Ltd. Naisarai, Arambag, Grand Trunk Rd., Chinsurah Vs. Dist. Hooghly-712602, R.S., Chinsurah-712102, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl5463F Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 39

delay of 117 days for which the condonation petition is filed. 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

Samaresh Paul, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward 25(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2574/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2574/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Samaresh Paul……...…... .……………………………………..….……….Appellant 16C, Bose Pukur Road, Kolkata – 700042. [Pan: Aeupp8135R] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Kolkata...……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwa & T. Wasi, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 29.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.7,42,850/-. The Assessee Thereafter Filed His Revised Return Of Income U/S 139(5) Of The Act By Declaring The Same Total Income. However, It Was Noticed That The Assessee Has Made Property Transaction Of Rs.98,51,000/- During The F.Y 2015-16 Relevant To A.Y 2016-17 Which Has Been Escaped Within The Meaning Of Section 147 Of The Act. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued Followed By Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act. However, The Assessee Did Not Turn Up In Response To The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Made

Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

appeal before the ld. CIT(A) by the assessee. The assessee could not explain any proper reason before the ld. CIT(A) for condoning such delay, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee ... Tribunal stating that the impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) was an ex parte order without considering the prayer for condonation of delay, which is not proper. The ld. AR stated that various notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) were in fact not received

Yash Mining Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2524/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2524/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Yash Mining Pvt. Ltd.…... .……………………………………..….……….Appellant 71 Canning Street 5Th Floor, Room No.512A, Kol-1. [Pan: Aaacy4989R] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata...……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 30.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 194 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S 139(1) Of The Act Declaring Total Income Of Rs.31,470/-. In The Case Of The Assessee, An Information Was Received That The Assessee Company Was One Of The

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 68

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 194 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the application, we find reasonable cause and the delay was not intentional. We, therefore, condone the delay

Krishnasamy Sathyanathan Ramprasad, Chengalpattu vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp. Ward 22(4), Tambaram.

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

ITA 3364/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3364/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Krishnasamy Sathyanathan Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ramprasad, No. 174, Anna Salai, Non Corporate Ward 22(4), Chengalpattu 603 001. Tambaram, Chennai. [Pan:Aempr9403C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R.S. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Lakshmi Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CiT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

filing the appeal, the assessee has submitted that due to his ill health/not knowing the procedure of appeal filing etc., prayed for condonation of delay, which was duly considered by the ld. CIT(A). He prayed that one more opportunity may be afforded to the assessee to pursue his case

Kannan Harikrishnan, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 3359/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3359/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kannan Harikrishnan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 735, Ponni Amman Koil Street, Non Corporate Ward 8(2), Madanandapuram, Chennai 600 116. Chennai. [Pan:Aepph3267K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 30 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: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

year 2018-19. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 30 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.3359/Chny/24 we find the reasons stated

Kalimuthu, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-4, Coimbatore

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

ITA 3348/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3348/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kalimuthu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Moolakkadai South Thottam, Sokkanur Non Corporate Ward 4, Post, Kinathukadavu (Vil) , Pollachi Coimbatore. Taluk, Coimbatore 642 109. [Pan:Bvjpk6367B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.08.2023 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 426 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 144Section 69A

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 426 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, we 2 I.T.A. No.3348/Chny/24 find the reasons stated

Lalitha, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 3198/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3198/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Lalitha, Income Tax Officer, #1, Kulakarai Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward-8(5) Poonamallee Chennai. Pan: Antpl-8662-P

For Appellant: Mr.Anandd Babunath, C.A ""For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 250

Year is 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 44 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated for late filing of the appeal is that the assessee ... view that there is reasonable cause for belated filing of this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 4. We find that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte

Kalaiselvi, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 3196/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3196/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt.Kalaiselvi, Income Tax Officer, #1, Kulakarai Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward-8(5) Poonamallee-600 056. Chennai. Pan: Ebcpk-1786-C

For Appellant: Mr.Anandd Babunath, C.A ""For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 250

Year is 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 355 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated for late filing of the appeal is that assessee has never ... view that there is reasonable cause for belated filing of this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 4. We find that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte

G2156 Sozhanga Nallur Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Sholinganallur vs. DCIT, Chennai Circle 3(3), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3183/CHNY/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3183/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 G2156 Sozhanga Nallur Urban Co- Deputy Commissioner Of Operative Credit Society Ltd V. Income Tax, Circle 3(3), 1, Devaraj Nagar, 3Rd Main Road Chennai. Sholinganallur, Chennai 600119. [Pan: Aabag-2604-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Ganesan, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. R. Ganesan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Appeals), Chennai dated 16.10.2024 and pertains to assessment year 2018- 19. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is rejection of condonation of delay for filing of return of income for assessment :-2-: ITA. No: 3183/Chny/2024 year 2018-19 and thereby disallowance of deductions claimed u/s.80P ... which was later confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) for want of order of the DGIT for :-4-: ITA. No: 3183/Chny/2024 condonation of delay in filing the return of income for the A.Y.2018- 19. 8. We note that assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay in filing

Gobipalayam Ramanagounder Natarajan, Erode vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as

ITA 2841/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

days in filing of these appeals. Since assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay, for which, the Ld.DR didn’t raise any objection and hence, we condone the delay of ‘7’ days. 3. At the outset, the Ld.AR

Gobipalayam Ramanagounder Natarajan, Erode vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as

ITA 2840/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

days in filing of these appeals. Since assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay, for which, the Ld.DR didn’t raise any objection and hence, we condone the delay of ‘7’ days. 3. At the outset, the Ld.AR

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Gopu Rajagopal, Chennai

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections

ITA 1811/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 69A

assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, prevented by sufficient cause, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee prayed for Ld.Counsel for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay, for which, the Ld.DR didn’t raise any donation of delay, for which, the Ld.DR didn’t raise any donation of delay, for which ... Ld.DR didn’t raise any serious objection and hence, we objection and hence, we condone the delay of ‘65’ days and s and proceed to adjudicate the Cross-Objection Objection on merits. 3. The Revenue has raised the following legal grounds: The Revenue has raised the following legal grounds

Arthi Baliga, Chennai vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1559/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

short]. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 4 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, we find 2 I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/24 the reasons stated by the assessee