← 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

M/S D B Infratech, Mumbai vs. Joint Comm of Income Tax Range 32(1), Mumbai

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6627/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Tribunal Be Condoned & The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) Be Set Aside Since The Cit(A) Had Dismissed The Appeal Without Examining The Merits Granting One More Opportunity To The Appellant To Make Out His Case Before The Cit(A) On Merits. Explain The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal, The Learned Authorised Representative For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Was Caused On Account Of Inadvertent Mistake Committed By The Employee Of The Company Who Was Tasked With The Job Of Keeping Track Of The Appellate Proceedings Before The Cit(A) & Was Asked To Arrange For Filing Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250

asked to arrange for filing appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A). 3. Per Contra Learned Departmental Representative objected to the condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. Supporting the order passed by CIT(A), Learned Departmental Representative submitted that despite having been granted five opportunities ... been stated that there was a delay of 140 days in filing the appeal, we find that the Assessee has filed application seeking condonation of delay of 508 days in filing the present appeal. The Appellant has filed application seeking condonation of delay wherein it has been stated that that

Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta, Santacruz East vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

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

ITA 6505/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 144Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A), has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal even though sufficient cause has been furnished to justify the reasons for delayed filing of the appeal.. 2. On facts and the circumstances ... facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A), has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal even though sufficient cause has been furnished to justify the reasons for delayed filing of the appeal. 2. On facts and the circumstances

Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta, Santacruz East vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

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

ITA 6504/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 144Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A), has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal even though sufficient cause has been furnished to justify the reasons for delayed filing of the appeal.. 2. On facts and the circumstances ... facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A), has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal even though sufficient cause has been furnished to justify the reasons for delayed filing of the appeal. 2. On facts and the circumstances

Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta, Santacruz East vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

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

ITA 6503/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 144Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A), has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal even though sufficient cause has been furnished to justify the reasons for delayed filing of the appeal.. 2. On facts and the circumstances ... facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A), has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal even though sufficient cause has been furnished to justify the reasons for delayed filing of the appeal. 2. On facts and the circumstances

Dhirendra Mohanlal Gupta, Santacruz East vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

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

ITA 6502/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 144Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A), has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal even though sufficient cause has been furnished to justify the reasons for delayed filing of the appeal.. 2. On facts and the circumstances ... facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A), has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal even though sufficient cause has been furnished to justify the reasons for delayed filing of the appeal. 2. On facts and the circumstances

Ramjee Trading Private Limited, Andheri East, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 13(3)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai

ITA 5738/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: the CIT(A) since the appeal preferred by the Assessee was dismissed by the CITA(A) has been barred by limitation. It was submitted that the Appellant had moved an application seeking condonation of delay of 167 days in filing appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee placed reliance on record brief submissions, dated 06/02/2025, and submitted that the Appellant has a good case

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra PoojaryFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram
Section 143(3)Section 250

Assessee was dismissed by the CITA(A) has been barred by limitation. It was submitted that the Appellant had moved an application seeking condonation of delay of 167 days in filing appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal ... passed by the CIT(A). 4. On perusal of record we find that the Assessee had filed affidavit in support of application seeking condonation of delay filed before the CIT(A). The Assessee had explained that the delay of 167 days in filing the appeal before

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Bombay Rayon Holdings Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

ITA 5606/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C, Kanojiya, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

There is a delay of 7 days noted by Registry in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal of the same and hearing both sides ... 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. 3. This is a set of four appeals by the Revenue having identical set of factual matrix with common

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Bombay Rayon Holdings Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

ITA 5605/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C, Kanojiya, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

There is a delay of 7 days noted by Registry in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal of the same and hearing both sides ... 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. 3. This is a set of four appeals by the Revenue having identical set of factual matrix with common

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Bombay Rayon Holdings Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

ITA 5604/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C, Kanojiya, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

There is a delay of 7 days noted by Registry in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal of the same and hearing both sides ... 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. 3. This is a set of four appeals by the Revenue having identical set of factual matrix with common

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Bombay Rayon Holdings Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue having common ground are dismissed

ITA 5603/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C, Kanojiya, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

There is a delay of 7 days noted by Registry in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal of the same and hearing both sides ... 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. 3. This is a set of four appeals by the Revenue having identical set of factual matrix with common

Bombay Oxygen Investments Limited, Mumbai vs. Commisioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4406/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. AR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

There is a delay of 93 days noted by Registry in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. Perusal of the same states that delay is attributable to change in the management staff of the assessee ... condonation of the said delay along with an affidavit. 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

Tribhuvan Prasad Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ITO (20)(3)(4), Mumai

In the result, the instant appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3812/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Pandey, ARFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. DR

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating that the assessee being a senior citizen was not aware of the fact that the appellate order for AY 2009-10 has been passed ... Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR submitted

DCIT, Central Circle- 4(1), Mumbai vs. Evergreen Financial Services, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1625/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Room No. 1916, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ……………. Appellant V/S Evergreen Financial Services, Kanakia Future City, Cts 101, Behind Dr. L H Hiranandani Hospital, Mumbai-400093. ……………. Respondent Pan : Aabfe 9028 R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 37Section 68

cross-objection filed by the assessee is delayed by 20 days. Along with the cross objection, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay duly supported by the affidavit sworn by the assessee’s partner, submitting as follows: – “1) I say that the assessee is a partnership firm ... lack of proper professional advice. 7) I repeat and reiterate the statements and averments made in the accompanying application for condonation of delay and they may be treated as reproduced verbatim in this affidavit. 8) I say that whatever stated above is true to the best of my knowledge

Challenge Commodities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Noida

In the result only ground pressed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2030/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68

appeal filed by assessee is time barred by 4 days. The learned AR during the course of hearing has made request for condonation of delay. In view of the application dated 07.05.2024 and the learned DR has not seriously disputed the delay aspect, the delay of 4 days in filing

Goutam Kumar Ranka, Bhilwara vs. ACIT, Central Cirlce, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1487/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR (Thru” VC)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 156Section 226(3)

days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an application dated 09-12-2024 for condonation of delay praying that he was not aware about passing the order by the ld.CIT(A) dated 04-09-2024. He submitted that his bank account was attached

Bhavuk Sehgal, Ajmer Fuels Shrinagar Road Ajmer vs. DCIT Circle -2 Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1467/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

that there is delay of 129 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayer. ‘’The appeal was decided by NFAC on dated 29-05-2024 and was sent on online portal. That no notice ... that there is delay of 129 days in filing the appeal by the assessee and the submissions as advanced by the assessee to condone the delay has no merit which shows that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the order passed by the ld.CIT(A). Thus the delay

M/S. Exhibits India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 4(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2481/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2481/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S Exhibits India Pvt. Ltd. .……………………………………..….……….Appellant P-496, Keyatala Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aabce1359C] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata….…….............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Jyoti Dugar, 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 25, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 26, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 09.09.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [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 6 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. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Various Grounds But The Primary Issue Under Consideration Is That An Addition Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 40A(3) Of The Act Alleging The Violation Of Provision Of Cash Payment & Whether The Assessment Made U/S 153A R.W.S.

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 40A(3)

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 6 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

Shanti Guru Infra, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Trichy

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

ITA 3239/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3239/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-2017) Shanti Guru Infra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer 53, Chinna Kamala Street, Ward 2(1) Trichy 620 008. Trichy [Pan: Acvfs 2517D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. M. Aswathy, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 143(3)

Stamp paper purchased for Rs.2,25,000/-. However, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of rejection of petition for condonation of delay. There was 201 days delay in filing the appeal. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Before the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted ... view that the delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) is sufficient cause. Hence, we direct the ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing appeal and hear the appeal on merits. Needless to say, that the ld.CIT(A) will follow the principle of natural justice and grant opportunity

Vellaisamy Sivakumar, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Thanjavur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 3203/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3203/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & S.A. No.18/Chny/2025 [In Ita No. 3203/Chny/2024] Vellaisamy Sivakumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Sri Sivas Hotels, New Bus Stand, Ward 2, Thanjavur 613 005. Thanjavur. [Pan:Dvpps6952C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Akash, Advocate & Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Gouthami Manivasagam Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri G. Akash, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Gouthami Manivasagam JCIT
Section 69A

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 351 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. 2 I.T.A. No.3203/Chny/24 & S.A. No. 18/Chny/25 Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find

Kannapiran, Puducherry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Puducherry

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

ITA 3195/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mr. V.Meenakshi Sundar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 250Section 271A

financial difficulties and GST registration of the assessee was cancelled. The Ld.AR has filed a paper book enclosing therein an affidavit for condonation of delay for filing appeal before the CIT(A), the order of the GST cancelling the registration, declaration of loan account as NPA etc. It was further