← 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

Anka 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 104/HYD/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

Anka 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 103/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

Anka Realtors, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incom, Hyderabad

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

ITA 102/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

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Avr Storage Tank Terminals Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the captioned appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2485/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2485/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata.…………………………………………..….……….Appellant Vs. Avr Storage Tank Terminals Pvt. Ltd. ….……............................……...…..…..Respondent 232/A, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Minto Park, Kolkata-20. [Pan: Aafca6801R] Appearances By: Shri Aakash Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 25, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against An Order Dated 17.04.2024 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 159 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Revenue 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 Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Challenging Various Grounds. However, The Primary Contention Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing Deduction For Payment Of Education Cess & Higher Education Cess Which Is Against The Provisions Of Income Tax

Section 250

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 159 days in filing the present appeal. The revenue 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

Purva Constructions and Engineering Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 51/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarpurva Constructions & Vs. Dcit, Circle 1(2)(1) Engineering Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, 109 Wakefield House, Sprott Mumbai – 400 020. Road, Ballard Fort, Mumbai – 400001. Pan/Gir No. Aaacp6600Q (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250

detailed affidavit filed at paper book page No. 67 to 71 and thus after hearing both the parties on the issue of condonation of delay, we noticed that in the affidavit the assessee has specifically pleaded that hearing before first appellate authority was not attended on account of fact that

Ronak Metal Industries, Mumbai vs. ITO WD.23(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/MUM/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

alleged bogus purchases. 3. At the outset, assessee’s appeal is time barred by 40 days. In the petition for condonation of delay assessee has stated that the assessee company was dissolved w.e.f. 31/03/2018 and at the time of filing of appeal in Form No.35 e-mail ID was provided

Mfa Capital Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Circle 10(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 6403/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: filing return of income u/s.139(1);

For Appellant: Shri Chetna BohraFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

Year 2016-2017. 2. The delay of 9 days in filing the present appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in application seeking condonation of delay which is supported by affidavit. 3. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The disallowance of sales promotion expenses to the tune

Meeras Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6142/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Sankarmeeras Land Developers Pvt Vs. Ito, Ward – 9(2)(3) Ltd Room No. 129, Aayakar 9, Abhishek, Dalia Ind. Bhavan, Mk Road, Estate, Andheri Link Road, Mumbai – 400020. Andheri (W), Mumbai. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6623J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250

outset, we noticed that there is delay of 237 days in filing the present appeal and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed 2 Meeras Land Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai by the assessee. The contents of the same or reproduced here in below ... case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC) and also keeping in view the cause for delay, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal by imposing cost of Rs.2000 upon the assessee and consequently the application is allowed and the present appeal stands

Jaiprakash L. Singh, Mumbai vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1301/MUM/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 250

deletion by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Condonation of Delay in filling of appeal is plead. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the interest charged of u/s.234A ... before the date of hearing. 2. There is a delay in filing the present appeal and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee supported by an affidavit. It was submitted that notice and communications regarding the said matter were served

Esm Group Inc, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(2)(2), International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 9365/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra[A.Y 2008-09] M/S Esm Group Inc. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T Suite 118 N, 300, Corporate Park Circle -1(2)(2) Way Amherst, New York International Taxation New Delhi Pan: Aacce 4072 H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri Sudhir Kumar Dash, Ca Department By :Ms. C. Chandra Kanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Kumar Dash, CAFor Respondent: Ms. C. Chandra Kanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

evidences brought on record in the form of Paper Book carefully perused. 4. The assessee has filed an application dated 06.06.2024 praying for condonation of delay on the ground of change in address and the assessee being an overseas company based out of USA. 5. There is a delay ... days. Findings the reasons for delay to be reasonable, we condone the delay. 6. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant company is an entity incorporated in the United States of America and is engaged in manufacturing and selling of products and equipmentprimarily for the American

Hindvee Small Finance Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3) Jammu, Jammu

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

ITA 215/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. K. L. Moolchandani, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69

deleted summarily. 2. The appellant craves the right to add amend an d alter the grounds on or before the hearing.” 3. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the Registry that the appeal is filed belatedly by 51 (fifty one) days. The appellant has filed an application ... condonation of delay in form of an affidavit sworn by the director of the appellant company Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar , explaining the fact that the name of the appellant company was originally M/s Sangam Hire Purchase Company Ltd, with address at old Nehru Market, Jammu PIN: 180001 , and subsequently the name

Guruvayur Service Co Operative Bank Limited, Guruvayur vs. Income Tax Officer, Guruvayur

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

ITA 74/COCH/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2023-24 Guruvayur Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Thaikkad P.O., Thrissur 680104 [Pan: Aacag2120N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward 1 & Tps, Guruvayur

For Appellant: Shri M. Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 80P(2)(a)

been filed within the due date. 3. The appellant filed a petition before the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) seeking condonation of delay in filing the return of income. 4. Since the assessee had moved petition for condonation of delay before the PCIT, the matter is restored

Vadakkevila Service Co Operative Bank Ltd, Kollam vs. Income-Tax Office, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 46/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Panicker, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit by the Tax Practitioner, Shri Santosh Maheswar, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that due to honest oversight he had omitted to file the appeal in time and also ... averments made in the condonation petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal. Therefore, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused 12. the material available on record

Vadakkevila Service Co Operative Bank Ltd, Kollam vs. Income-Tax Office, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 45/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Panicker, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit by the Tax Practitioner, Shri Santosh Maheswar, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that due to honest oversight he had omitted to file the appeal in time and also ... averments made in the condonation petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal. Therefore, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused 12. the material available on record

Vadakkevila Service Co Operative Bank Ltd, Kollam vs. Income-Tax Office, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 44/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Panicker, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit by the Tax Practitioner, Shri Santosh Maheswar, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that due to honest oversight he had omitted to file the appeal in time and also ... averments made in the condonation petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal. Therefore, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused 12. the material available on record

Vadakkevila Service Co Operative Bank Ltd, Kollam vs. Income-Tax Office, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 43/COCH/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Panicker, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit by the Tax Practitioner, Shri Santosh Maheswar, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that due to honest oversight he had omitted to file the appeal in time and also ... averments made in the condonation petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal. Therefore, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused 12. the material available on record

Vadakkevila Service Co Operative Bank Ltd, Kollam vs. Income-Tax Office, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 42/COCH/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Panicker, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit by the Tax Practitioner, Shri Santosh Maheswar, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that due to honest oversight he had omitted to file the appeal in time and also ... averments made in the condonation petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal. Therefore, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused 12. the material available on record

Kothamangalam Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd, Kothamangalam vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Thodupuzhu

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

ITA 12/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2021-22 Kothamangalam Housing Co-Op. Society Ltd. .......... Appellant Cheriyapally, Kothamangalam P.O. Ernakulam 686691 [Pan: Aadak5376P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1 & Tps, Thodupuzha

For Appellant: Smt. Pooja V.M., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 80P

income was not filed within due date. 3. The appellant filed a petition before the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) seeking condonation of delay in filing the return of income. 4. Since the assessee had moved petition for condonation of delay before the PCIT, the matter is restored

Sandeep Kumar Soni, Bhopal vs. The ITO 4(3), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed

ITA 82/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhashri Deepak Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Acyps8020J) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambey Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Avgps0484F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

further submitted that the sole reason of delay is as explained in the condonation-application and affidavits. He prayed for condonation of delay. Ld. DR for Revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench without raising any objection. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence ... that the delay of 3 days was caused by present counsel in filing appeal. The present counsel accepts his fault and prays to condone the delay so that no harm is caused to assessee. Ld. DR for Revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench without rejecting any objection

Shri Deepak Soni, Bhyopal vs. The ITO 4 (3), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhashri Deepak Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Acyps8020J) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambey Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Avgps0484F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

further submitted that the sole reason of delay is as explained in the condonation-application and affidavits. He prayed for condonation of delay. Ld. DR for Revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench without raising any objection. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence ... that the delay of 3 days was caused by present counsel in filing appeal. The present counsel accepts his fault and prays to condone the delay so that no harm is caused to assessee. Ld. DR for Revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench without rejecting any objection