← 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

Star Drugs & Research Labs Pvt. Ltd., Hosur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 3176/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3176 & 3177/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Star Drugs & Research Labs Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, 16C/16D/16E/16F, Circle-1(1) Star Shoping Complex, Salem. Old Krishnagiri Road, Hosur-635 109. Pan: Aaecs-3826-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.Richa Bakiwala & Mr.P.Hemasundara Rao, Advocates ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr.A.Sasikumar,Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A) - Nfac Both Dated 09.01.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013- 14. Ita No.3176 & 3177//Chny/2024 2. There Is A Delay Of 256 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavit Of The Director Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reason Stated For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Assessee Had Engaged New Tax Consultant & There Was No Proper Communication Between The Present & Old Consultants & Due To Lack Of Co-Ordination & Oversight, Necessary Compliance Could Not Be Made Within The Prescribed Time Limit. It Was Further Submitted In The Affidavit That Deponent’S Brother, Who Was Also A Director In The Assessee Company Was Suffering From Severe Illness During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings & He Unfortunately Expired In September, 2024 After Prolonged Illness.

For Appellant: Ms.Richa Bakiwala &For Respondent: Mr.A.Sasikumar,CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

No.3176 & 3177//CHNY/2024 2. There is a delay of 256 days in filing these appeals. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit of the Director stating therein the reasons for belated filing of these appeals. The reason stated for belated filing of these appeals ... genuine and sufficient reasons shown for belated filing of these appeals and no latches could be attributed to the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing these appeals and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits. 4. At the very outset, we notice that both the assessment

Practo Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Bengaluru, Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 311/BANG/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2025

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(10)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153

filed return of income u/s 148 of the Act. 3.4 The return of income was subsequently e-verified on 22.12.2021 and a condonation of delay in e-verification was filed with the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC). The condonation of delay was accepted by the CPC on 20.02.2023, when the status ... section 14A and section 37 of the Act. It may be noted that the draft assessment order was passed post the date of condonation of delay in e-verification of the return. 3.9 The Assessee filed its objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') in Form 35A, as per section

Mrs. Gajalakshmi P Represented to Late Mr. Madurai Ananthraj Jagadish, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2030/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department
Section 115Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(2)Section 250

appeal filed is not in conformity with the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. 3.2 Aggrieved by the order ... been diagnosed of having the onset of dementia. Further the ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Further, ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that the assessee has infact filed his return of income in response to notice, which

Rajendra Kamalakant Chodankar, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6629/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 6629/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

delay 2 ITA No.6629/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2020-21 Rajendra Kamalakant Chodankar explaining the reasons which is scanned and reproduced as under: “APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL 1. In the above-mentioned case, the Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC had passed an order on 26.08.2024. The statutory due date ... Supreme Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji and Others (167 ITR 471) wherein the treatment to condone the delay has been explained comprehensively. According to the Court the question whether to condone the delay or not was not very important, what was more significant is justice

Express Cargo Movers, Mumbai vs. DDIT CPC, Banglore, Mumbai

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

ITA 6400/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

interest of justice, I remit this appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to furnish the application seeking condonation of delay along with affidavit in support. The Ld. CIT(A) shall consider the reasons filed by the assessee in accordance with law that caused delay

Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Hormone Investment, Mumbai

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

ITA 5336/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Omkareshwar Chidaravs. Ito, Ward – 1(1) Konark Residency (I) Pvt Thane Ltd 36-38, New Satara Samuha, Dnyaneshwari Bldg, Plot No. B/2B, Sector 12, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai – 410210. Pan/Gir No. Aadck6503C (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250

deliberate delay, then in that eventuality the cause of substantial justice is to be preferred. Therefore, keeping in view, these principles, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the same to be heard on merits. 3 Konark Residency (I) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai 3. All the grounds ... assessing officer on 29.09.2022, whereas the appeal was instituted before Ld. CIT(A) on 07.02.2024, without filing separate application for seeking condonation of delay or without any affidavit. 6. In this regard, Ld. AR has drawn our attention to the statement of facts filed before Ld. CIT(A) and submitted

Shelter Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5315/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)

Annexure-5) wherein the Board has instructed the Hon'ble CIT's to expeditiously admit the belated applications for Form 10B and condone the delay for AYs 2018-19 and onwards, if the same is not beyond 365 days. The relevant extract of the Circular is as follows ... Year 2018-19 or for any subsequent Assessment Years, the Commissioners of Income-tax are hereby authorized to admit such belated applications of condonation of delay under section 119(2) of the IT Act and decide on merits." (7) In view of the above-Board Circular, which is squarely applicable

Brijesh Kumar, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO Ward - 1(2), Noida

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

ITA 3360/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Devi Singh Vs. Ito Ward- 5 (1) (2) Vill- Sorkha Sector-115, Noida Noida G.B. Nagar, 21301 Pan No.Apypd3604C Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025

Section 144Section 148Section 69

awareness about faceless process of compliances. 7. The appellant is praying for one more opportunity for complying facts.” 2. The application for condonation of delay has been filed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee for the delay of 111 days. The Assessee in his application for the delay stated ... Assessee has put his thumb impression which show that he is an illiterate. In the interest of justice and fair play we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Coming to the merits of the appeal we find that the assessee has agitated

Sandeep Duggal, New Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Civic Center, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 3296/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Sandeep Duggal, Vs. Assessment Unit, A-165, Dayanand Colony, Civic Centre, Lajpat Nagar-Iv, Income Tax Department New Delhi – 24 (Pan: Aafpd8757N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Dilbagh Kochar, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2025 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.09.2023 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi On The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Sh. Dilbagh Kochar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

delay of 17 days in filing the Appeal. 20. That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax did not oblige the Condonation of Delay submitted by the Appellant. 21. That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax did not take into account the Statement of Facts, Grounds of Appeal ... interest of justice will be served, if the delay of 17 days before the CIT(A) is condoned. Hence, I condone the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded back the matter to the file

Nidhi Jain, C/O Deshlahra Industries, Nandini Road Bhilai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 (1), Bhilai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 28/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.28/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Nidhi Jain C/O. Deshlahra Industries, Nandini Road, Bhilai Durg (C.G.)-490 001 Pan: Afhpj2470H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

Bhilai 3. Per contra, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) did not raise any objection to the seeking of condonation of delay by the assessee appellant. 4 Nidhi Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai 4. Considering the facts that the impugned delay had occasioned

Shri Om Parshavnath Developers Pvt. Ltd., Durg vs. ACIT-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 23/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 23/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Om Parshvanath Developers Private Limited Nadi Road, Ganjpara, Durg (C.G)-491 001 Pan: Aamcs7665N

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

cause which prevented him to file the appeal within stipulate time. 3.3 There are various judicial pronouncements which laid down the principle for condonation of delay. The basic essence of all the judgment is that delay should be reasonable and justifiable and there should not be any negligence ... held that it is however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction

Rameshwar Thakur, Dalli Rajhara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Bhilai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 21/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.21/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rameshwar Thakur Bharitola, Chipara, Dalli Rajhara (C.G.)-491 228 Pan : Adzpt6030H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Akansha Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in condoning the delay in filing of appeal before CIT(A). 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... delay of 1316 days, therefore, the assessee had filed an application seeking condonation of the delay stating, as under: “Subject: Application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal u/s 246A of the Act. With reference to above this appeal is delayed by 1316 days for which the appellant hereby

Ram Kumar, Supaul vs. ITO, 3(5), Saharsa

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

ITA 464/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 156 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee for condoning the delay stating as follows: “1. That this application is filed for condonation of delay in the filing ... present appeal be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits.” 1.2. The assessee has also filed an affidavit requesting for condonation of delay on account of serious illness and being on bed rest. Considering the reasons in the application seeking condonation of delay and the affidavit, we are satisfied

Madhuri Devi, Saharsa vs. ITO Ward- 3 (4), Saharsa

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

ITA 238/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 30 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee for condoning the delay stating as follows: “01. That the petitioner has preferred Appeal before your honour online vide Acknowledgement ... case. In view of the facts, you honour would be graciously pleased to appreciate the submissions made hereinabove and be further pleased to condone the delay as prayed hereinabove. And for this act of your kindness, the petitioner shall ever pray.” 1.2. Considering the condonation application and the reasons stated

Sandipbhai Jamiyatbhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO Ward-1, Bardoli

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 917/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.916 & 917/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Sandipbhai Jamiyatbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, At Post Piparia, Tal. Mandvi, Bardoli, Room # 05, Income बनाम Surat-394 104 Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs [Pan : Bvgpp 0297 N] Opp. Jalaram Mandir, Station Road, Bardoli-394 601 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 272A(1)(d)

pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice may be preferred. Thus, we find that the explanation given by assessee for condonation of delay is acceptable one. We find one more reason that ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee without issuing notice under section 250 of Income

Sandipbhai Jamiyabhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bardoli

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 916/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.916 & 917/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Sandipbhai Jamiyatbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, At Post Piparia, Tal. Mandvi, Bardoli, Room # 05, Income बनाम Surat-394 104 Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs [Pan : Bvgpp 0297 N] Opp. Jalaram Mandir, Station Road, Bardoli-394 601 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 272A(1)(d)

pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice may be preferred. Thus, we find that the explanation given by assessee for condonation of delay is acceptable one. We find one more reason that ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee without issuing notice under section 250 of Income

Mansor Foods India Private Limited, Cochin vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 996/COCH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2022-23 Mansor Foods India Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Door O. 43/3310A, Thammanam Puthiya Road , Kailas Nagar, Kochi 682025 [Pan: Aakcm7705M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Corporate Ward 1(1), Kochi

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

that there is a delay of 7 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the delay had occurred due to technical issues encountered on the portal of the ITAT ... 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. 6. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service

Puthiyarambath Balakrishnan, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

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

ITA 861/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Puthiyarambath Balakrishnan .......... Appellant "Achutham", Pilakkatt, Parambra Kottooli, Kozhikode 673016 [Pan: Aggpb2229J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(1), Kozhikode

For Appellant: Shri Rishal K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

outset we find that there is a delay of 184 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed petition seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit stating that the delay had occurred as the appellant was not aware of the appellate order which came to his knowledge only ... perusal of the condonation petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. It is submitted before me that the notice sent by the CIT(A) went to the wrong email

The Nallepilly Service Cooperative Bank Limited Nor43, Nallepilly vs. ITO, Ward-1 Assessment Unit Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan Palakkad

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

ITA 857/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Nallepilly Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant \5/453 Nallepilly, Chittur, Palakkad 678553 [Pan: Aacat5798F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, English Church Road Palakkad 678001

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

outset I find that there is a delay of 27 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed petition for condonation of delay stating that the delay had occurred due to the procedural delays in getting the permission from the higher authorities. It is prayed that the delay ... averments made in the condonation petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. When the appeal was called on, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service

Kerala State Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Kalavoor vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 799/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kerala State Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. .......... Appellant Lakavoor, Alappuzha 688522 [Pan: Aaack8717D] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle Alappuzha Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 4 days. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay of 4 days by holding that it is an inordinate delay and the appellant had failed to make out sufficient cause for the delay. 4. Being ... material available on record. The solitary issue that arises in the present appeal is whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 4 days in filing the appeal. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay stating that 3 Kerala State Drugs and Pharmaceuticals