← 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

Ajmer Vidhut Vitran Nigam Limited, Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh vs. ITO (TDS), Chittorgarh, Rawatbhata

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1513/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

filing of appeal consequent to passing of the order in some other case cannot be accepted as a reasonable sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned. Since the condonation of delay is not granted, the Appeal filed ... Aggrieved from that order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal therein that Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and before us to support the prayer for condonation of delay before ld. CIT(A), ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following

Ajmer Vidhut Vitran Nigam Limited, Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh vs. ITO (TDS), Chittorgarh

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1512/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

filing of appeal consequent to passing of the order in some other case cannot be accepted as a reasonable sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned. Since the condonation of delay is not granted, the Appeal filed ... Aggrieved from that order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal therein that Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and before us to support the prayer for condonation of delay before ld. CIT(A), ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following

Ajmer Vidhut Vitran Nigam Limited, Rawatbhata vs. ITO (TDS), Chittorgarh, Rawatbhata

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1511/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

filing of appeal consequent to passing of the order in some other case cannot be accepted as a reasonable sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned. Since the condonation of delay is not granted, the Appeal filed ... Aggrieved from that order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal therein that Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and before us to support the prayer for condonation of delay before ld. CIT(A), ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following

Ajmer Vidhut Nitran Nigam Limited, Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh vs. ITO (TDS), Chittorgarh, Rawatbhata

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1510/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

filing of appeal consequent to passing of the order in some other case cannot be accepted as a reasonable sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned. Since the condonation of delay is not granted, the Appeal filed ... Aggrieved from that order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal therein that Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and before us to support the prayer for condonation of delay before ld. CIT(A), ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Bhupalsagar, Chittorgarh vs. ITO (TDS), Chittorgarh

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1509/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

filing of appeal consequent to passing of the order in some other case cannot be accepted as a reasonable sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned. Since the condonation of delay is not granted, the Appeal filed ... Aggrieved from that order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal therein that Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and before us to support the prayer for condonation of delay before ld. CIT(A), ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following

Ajmer Vidyut Nigam Limited, Bhupalsagar vs. ITO (TDS), Chittorgarh, Bhupalsagar

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1508/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

filing of appeal consequent to passing of the order in some other case cannot be accepted as a reasonable sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned. Since the condonation of delay is not granted, the Appeal filed ... Aggrieved from that order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal therein that Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and before us to support the prayer for condonation of delay before ld. CIT(A), ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Bhupalsagar vs. ITO (TDS), Chittorgarh, Bhupalsagar

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1507/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

filing of appeal consequent to passing of the order in some other case cannot be accepted as a reasonable sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned. Since the condonation of delay is not granted, the Appeal filed ... Aggrieved from that order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal therein that Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and before us to support the prayer for condonation of delay before ld. CIT(A), ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Bhupalsagar vs. ITO (TDS), Chittorgarh

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1506/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234E

filing of appeal consequent to passing of the order in some other case cannot be accepted as a reasonable sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned. Since the condonation of delay is not granted, the Appeal filed ... Aggrieved from that order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal therein that Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and before us to support the prayer for condonation of delay before ld. CIT(A), ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following

Desh Raj Jakhar, Gordhanpura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Neem Ka Thana

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

ITA 1261/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shaffi Mohd. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 5Section 69

days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an application dated 15-10-2024 for condonation of delay giving therein following reasons: ‘’1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless appeals Centre passed the order in appeal of the assessee

Pune Bench of Association of Physicians of India, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer (E), Ward-1(1), Pune

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

ITA 2884/PUN/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

appeal(s) have been filed with a delay of 209 days and 87 days respectively. The assessee has filed the application(s) for condonation of delay along with a sworn affidavit stating therein the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal. On perusal of the same ... affidavit. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the delay is attributable to the sufficient cause. We, therefore condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances

Pune Bench of Association of Physicians of India, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer (E), Ward-1(1), Pune

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

ITA 2768/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

appeal(s) have been filed with a delay of 209 days and 87 days respectively. The assessee has filed the application(s) for condonation of delay along with a sworn affidavit stating therein the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal. On perusal of the same ... affidavit. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the delay is attributable to the sufficient cause. We, therefore condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad vs. Ankaa Realtors, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee for the A

ITA 75/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.71/Hyd/2021 To 75/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y.: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 To 2017-18) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Ankaa Realtors Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.102/Hyd/2021 To 108/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S Ankaa Realtors Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 25/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12 To 2017-18. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

observed that the appeal has been filed by the assessee with the delay of 27 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was received on 03.11.2020 and the appeal ought to have been filed before the Tribunal ... appeal is due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, which are neither intentional nor deliberate. He, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing, for which the Ld.DR has not raised any objection. 16. We have gone through the condonation petition filed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(4), Hyderabad vs. Ankaa Realtors, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee for the A

ITA 74/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.71/Hyd/2021 To 75/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y.: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 To 2017-18) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Ankaa Realtors Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.102/Hyd/2021 To 108/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S Ankaa Realtors Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 25/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12 To 2017-18. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

observed that the appeal has been filed by the assessee with the delay of 27 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was received on 03.11.2020 and the appeal ought to have been filed before the Tribunal ... appeal is due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, which are neither intentional nor deliberate. He, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing, for which the Ld.DR has not raised any objection. 16. We have gone through the condonation petition filed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(4), Hyderabad vs. Ankaa Realtors, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee for the A

ITA 73/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.71/Hyd/2021 To 75/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y.: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 To 2017-18) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Ankaa Realtors Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.102/Hyd/2021 To 108/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S Ankaa Realtors Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 25/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12 To 2017-18. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

observed that the appeal has been filed by the assessee with the delay of 27 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was received on 03.11.2020 and the appeal ought to have been filed before the Tribunal ... appeal is due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, which are neither intentional nor deliberate. He, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing, for which the Ld.DR has not raised any objection. 16. We have gone through the condonation petition filed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(4), Hyderabad vs. Ankaa Realtors, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee for the A

ITA 72/HYD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.71/Hyd/2021 To 75/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y.: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 To 2017-18) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Ankaa Realtors Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.102/Hyd/2021 To 108/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S Ankaa Realtors Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 25/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12 To 2017-18. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

observed that the appeal has been filed by the assessee with the delay of 27 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was received on 03.11.2020 and the appeal ought to have been filed before the Tribunal ... appeal is due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, which are neither intentional nor deliberate. He, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing, for which the Ld.DR has not raised any objection. 16. We have gone through the condonation petition filed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad vs. Ankaa Realtors, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee for the A

ITA 71/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.71/Hyd/2021 To 75/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y.: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 To 2017-18) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Ankaa Realtors Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.102/Hyd/2021 To 108/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S Ankaa Realtors Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 25/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12 To 2017-18. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

observed that the appeal has been filed by the assessee with the delay of 27 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was received on 03.11.2020 and the appeal ought to have been filed before the Tribunal ... appeal is due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, which are neither intentional nor deliberate. He, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing, for which the Ld.DR has not raised any objection. 16. We have gone through the condonation petition filed

Ankaa Realtors, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee for the A

ITA 108/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.71/Hyd/2021 To 75/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y.: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 To 2017-18) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Ankaa Realtors Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.102/Hyd/2021 To 108/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S Ankaa Realtors Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 25/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12 To 2017-18. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

observed that the appeal has been filed by the assessee with the delay of 27 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was received on 03.11.2020 and the appeal ought to have been filed before the Tribunal ... appeal is due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, which are neither intentional nor deliberate. He, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing, for which the Ld.DR has not raised any objection. 16. We have gone through the condonation petition filed

Ankaa Realtors, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee for the A

ITA 107/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.71/Hyd/2021 To 75/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y.: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 To 2017-18) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Ankaa Realtors Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.102/Hyd/2021 To 108/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S Ankaa Realtors Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 25/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12 To 2017-18. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

observed that the appeal has been filed by the assessee with the delay of 27 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was received on 03.11.2020 and the appeal ought to have been filed before the Tribunal ... appeal is due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, which are neither intentional nor deliberate. He, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing, for which the Ld.DR has not raised any objection. 16. We have gone through the condonation petition filed

Ankaa Realtors, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee for the A

ITA 106/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.71/Hyd/2021 To 75/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y.: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 To 2017-18) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Ankaa Realtors Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.102/Hyd/2021 To 108/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S Ankaa Realtors Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 25/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12 To 2017-18. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

observed that the appeal has been filed by the assessee with the delay of 27 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was received on 03.11.2020 and the appeal ought to have been filed before the Tribunal ... appeal is due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, which are neither intentional nor deliberate. He, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing, for which the Ld.DR has not raised any objection. 16. We have gone through the condonation petition filed

Ankaa Realtors, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(4), Hyderabad

ITA 105/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Respondent: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,AR
Section 132

observed that the appeal has been filed by the assessee with the delay of 27 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was received on 03.11.2020 and the appeal ought to have been filed before the Tribunal ... appeal is due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, which are neither intentional nor deliberate. He, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing, for which the Ld.DR has not raised any objection. 16. We have gone through the condonation petition filed