← 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

Pedaballi Sukanya, Anantapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chittoor

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 49/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: CA KA Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Pradhan, Sr. AR
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 54F

Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) requested the Bench to condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. Learned DR on the other hand strongly opposed condonation applications filed by the assessee. 4. We have heard ... rival arguments made by both the sides on the issue of condonation of delay in filing of the above appeal. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji (supra) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad vs. Azaj Farooqi, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 63/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.63/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Azaj Farooqi Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan :Aafpf5292G] Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 69A

observed that the appeal has been filed by the assessee with the delay of 48 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was received on 26.10.2020 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. 3. We have gone through the condonation petition filed

Azaj Farooqi, Secunderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cirtcle -3(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 110/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.63/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Azaj Farooqi Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan :Aafpf5292G] Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 69A

observed that the appeal has been filed by the assessee with the delay of 48 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was received on 26.10.2020 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. 3. We have gone through the condonation petition filed

M/S. Radhika Commercial Pvt. Ltd., 24-Parganas North vs. I.T.O., Ward - 14(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1307/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Your Honours That In The Present Case, The Appellate Order Is Dated 24.11.2023. Accordingly, The Last Date To File The Appeal Was 23.01.2024. As Such There Is A Delay Of 141 Days In Filing The Appeal. Regarding Delay In Filing Of Appeal, It Is Submitted That The Hearing Notices Dated 21.09.2023, 18.10.2023 & 06.11.2023 Were Sent At Incorrect Email Ids Ie. Aabcr2237H@Gmail.Com Sdacasit@Gmail.Com Whereas The Correct Email Id Was It.Vkma@Gmail.Com Which Was Duly Mentioned In The Returns Of Income & At

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 68

order, there is a delay of 141 days. In view of the facts stated hereinabove, the appellant do hereby most respectfully request for condonation of delay. For this act of kindness, the appellant as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 1.1 Considering the reasons given in the said petition

Prabhat Vivekanandan, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-3(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 3145/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3145/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Prabhat Vikekanandan Income Tax Officer, 220, East Sambandam Road , Vs. Non-Corporate Ward-3(1) R.S.Puram,Coimbatore-641 002. Coimbatore. Pan: Bgepp-5955-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mrs. Mathangi, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K:

For Appellant: Mrs. Mathangi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 250

Year is 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 11 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. On perusal of the aforesaid reasons in the condonation application ... view that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. At the outset, it is noticed that the ld.AR

Regus Suburb Centres Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6836/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us Ld. Counsel Submitted That Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay & Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal As Not Maintainable Considering That Appeal Is Not Filed In Conformity With The Provisions Of Section 249(2) & There Is No Sufficient Cause For Condonation Of Delay In Appeal.

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 249(2)

A.Y.2016-17. 2. In the grounds of appeal assessee is aggrieved by the action of the ld. CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal and confirming the action of the ld. AO for treating the assessee as “assessee in default” under the provisions of 2 Regus ... raising tax demand of Rs.1,45,44,758/-. 3. Before us ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay and ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal as not maintainable considering that appeal is not filed in conformity with the provisions of Section

Bindya Ashok Dwara, Dubai, Uae vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 4543/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2011-12 Mrs. Bindya Ashok Dwara, Commissioner Of Income Flat No.204, Building 9, Tax (Appeals), Foxhill 9, Motor City, Government Of India, Dubai – 124055 Vs. Ministry Of Finance, Pan: Aknpd9713A Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi – 110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Harman Sodhi, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 18 . 12 .2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Harman Sodhi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

various documents in support of her case, however with a delay of more than six years and without filing any application seeking such condonation of delay either. 4. The Ld. Commissioner ultimately dismissed the appeal of the Assessee mainly on the reasons that source of investment is unverifiable. The appeal ... delayed and the Assessee has not followed procedure or filed any application seeking such condonation of delay in filing of appeal and also not cared to file any application under rule 46A of the Rules, seeking admittance of additional evidences. The Ld. Commissioner ultimately affirmed the aforesaid addition, by dismissing

Kavita Ralhan, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (2), Gwalior

ITA 443/AGR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

four cases involve section 144, 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F proceedings, as the case may be, involve identical issue of condonation of delay of 448, 248, 245 and 257 days; respectively, in filing of her as many lower appeals. 4. Learned Sr. DR could hardly dispute

Shree Narayan Built Up India Private Limited, Jhansi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2) Gwalior, Gwalior

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 116/AGR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 147

lower appeal condonation application and find merit therein. This for the precise reason that they have indeed made out a case to condone the delay, in the corresponding averments filed before the lower authorities. Faced with this situation we condone the delay in light of Collector, Land Acquisition

Uday Mahila Seva Sanstha, Umred vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 466/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Swati SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

present appeal by the assessee. While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay of 17 days which is supported by Affidavit, the contents of the affidavit are reproduced below. “The assessee is before your Honor against the order ... delay of 6 days in filing the appeal. Based on the above submissions the assessee most humbly request your honor to kindly condone the delay of around 6 days in filing appeal and kindly allow her to file the appeal with around 6 days of delay. The assessee will

Krishna Nadini Gaudham Charitable Trust, Kota vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Kota

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

ITA 490/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Feb 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

days delay in filing the appeal u/s 80G of the Act for which the ld.AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in connection with above mentioned appeals narrating therein as under:- ‘’1. That the assessee trust filed an appeal on 14-04- 2024 against ... appeal. Hence, the Bench does not find sufficient cause whereby the assessee was prevented in late filing the appeal. Thus the applications for condonation of delay made by the assessee is dismissed. However, the Bench feels that with a view to providing the substantial justice to the assessee, the appeal

Krishna Nandini Gaudham Charitable Trust, Kota vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Kota

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

ITA 489/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Feb 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

days delay in filing the appeal u/s 80G of the Act for which the ld.AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in connection with above mentioned appeals narrating therein as under:- ‘’1. That the assessee trust filed an appeal on 14-04- 2024 against ... appeal. Hence, the Bench does not find sufficient cause whereby the assessee was prevented in late filing the appeal. Thus the applications for condonation of delay made by the assessee is dismissed. However, the Bench feels that with a view to providing the substantial justice to the assessee, the appeal

Krishna Nandini Gaudham Charitable Trust, Kota vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Kota

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

ITA 488/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Feb 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

days delay in filing the appeal u/s 80G of the Act for which the ld.AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in connection with above mentioned appeals narrating therein as under:- ‘’1. That the assessee trust filed an appeal on 14-04- 2024 against ... appeal. Hence, the Bench does not find sufficient cause whereby the assessee was prevented in late filing the appeal. Thus the applications for condonation of delay made by the assessee is dismissed. However, the Bench feels that with a view to providing the substantial justice to the assessee, the appeal

Karnam Rudrapillai Gunaseharan, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-4, Coimbator

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed as academic

ITA 45/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 45/Chny/2025 & Sp No: 16/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Karnam Rudrapillai Gunaseharan, Income Tax Officer, 112, Mayflower Sakthi Garden, V. Corporate Ward -4, Nanjundapuram South, Coimbatore. Coimbatore South – 641 036. [Pan: Agxpg-7863-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Arul Manian, Ca & Shri. Murugappa Boopathy, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Arul Manian, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 69

outset, we find that there is a delay of 39 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons for delay has been filed. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there

M/S. Khedut Oil Traders, Mumbai vs. I.T.O, -22(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3833/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Khedut Oil Traders Vs. Ito – 22(2)(1) D-403 / Godavari Chs Ltd., Piramal Chambers, Sir P.M Road, Off Tilak Road, Lalbaug. Parel Santacruz (W), Mumbai Mumbai. Pan/Gir No. Aaafk1294J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)

alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing this appeal. The appellant humbly seeks condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. (encl. Affidavit and an application for condonation of delay along with Form 36. The appellant prays that for this ... this regard 3 M/s. Khedut Oil Traders, Mumbai Ld.AR has filed an application along with affidavit to support his contents for seeking condonation of delay. 3. On the other hand, Ld. DR argued that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay and even the appeal filed

Saroj, Mainpuri vs. I.T.O Ward 2(5), Mainpuri

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

ITA 218/AGR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

time prescribed u/s. 253(3) of the Act. Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has duly filed application supported with affidavit for condonation of delay in filing this appeal with ITAT belatedly by 82 days beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3). Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention ... appeal with ITAT by engaging Shri Pankaj Gargh, Advocate as her counsel for filing the appeal with ITAT. Thus, prayers were made to condone the delay of 82 days in filing this appeal belatedly with ITAT beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3). 6. Learned Sr. DR on the other

Sh Abhishek Gupta, Agra vs. ITO W2(2)(1), Firozabad

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

ITA 172/AGR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarshri Abhishek Gupta The Income Tax Officer 405, Anupam Omerean Ward 2(2)(1), Firozabad, Heights, Mughal Road, V. U.P. Kamla Nagar, Agra-282005 Uttar Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aefpg0755D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Written adj. application rejectedFor Respondent: Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 253(3)

with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra. The assessee has filed an application supported with the affidavit praying for condonation of delay in filing this appeal belatedly with ITAT by 331 days beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3). The assessee has submitted that assessee was seriously ... Bench.The ld. Sr. DR could not controvert the averments made by the assessee in his application supported by affidavit praying for condonation of delay in filing this appeal belatedly. It is observed by the Bench that the date of order of the CIT(A) is 23.09.2021 which was period covered

Morrys Foundation, Gandhinagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1963/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1962/Ahd/2024 & 1963/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : - Morrys Foundation Sf-203, Plot No.R-1, K. Road, Nr. New Green C, Sector-26, Gandhinagar – 382 028 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaqcm 3419 G बनाम / The Cit (Exemption) V/S. Anandnagar-Prahladnagar Road Ahmedabad – 380 015 अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suchit Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(E)"] Dated 05.04.2024 & 03.04.2024, Rejecting The Assessee'S Applications For Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act") & Approval Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Suchit Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G(5)

approval under Section 80G(5) of the Act respectively. ITA Nos.1962 & 1963/Ahd/2024 Morrys Foundation vs. CIT (E) 2 Condonation of delay 2. The appeals were delayed beyond the prescribed time limit. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay, citing that the delay was due to failure ... Form 10AB of the Act, and the medical condition of the trustee. The Departmental Representative (DR) has not raised any objections against the condonation of delay. Considering the facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, we find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause from filing

Morrys Foundation, Gandhinagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1962/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1962/Ahd/2024 & 1963/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : - Morrys Foundation Sf-203, Plot No.R-1, K. Road, Nr. New Green C, Sector-26, Gandhinagar – 382 028 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaqcm 3419 G बनाम / V/S.\The Cit (Exemption) Anandnagar-Prahladnagar Road Ahmedabad – 380 015 अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suchit Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(E)"] Dated 05.04.2024 & 03.04.2024, Rejecting The Assessee'S Applications For Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act") & Approval Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Suchit Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G(5)

approval under Section 80G(5) of the Act respectively. ITA Nos.1962 & 1963/Ahd/2024 Morrys Foundation vs. CIT (E) 2 Condonation of delay 2. The appeals were delayed beyond the prescribed time limit. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay, citing that the delay was due to failure ... Form 10AB of the Act, and the medical condition of the trustee. The Departmental Representative (DR) has not raised any objections against the condonation of delay. Considering the facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, we find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause from filing

Gandhi Pedapudi, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 65/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: K. Prabhabati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Harshita Chouhan, SR-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

No.65/Hyd/2025 3 On the basis of the reason given in affidavit, the Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) prayed before the bench for condonation of delay. 3. After considering the reasons for the delay and after hearing the Learned Department Representative (“Ld. DR”), we are of the opinion that there ... reasonable cause for the delay in filing of the appeal before us. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the apepal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds : ITA No.65/Hyd/2025 4 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee