← 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

Kushal Prasad Sahu, Bilaspur vs. ACIT, Circle1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 14/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 14 & 15/Rpr/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 140ASection 144Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 27lSection 80C

which how the appeal could have been taken for hearing. He also filed Order against which appeal has been preferred and prayer for condonation of delay. Order of CIT(A) is unjustified & appeal be admitted & be decided on merits. 2. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner ... that the appellant has not filed Form 35, Grounds of Appeal, copy of order against which appeal has been preferred and application for condonation of delay. Prayed that the appellant has filed Form 35 along with Statement of facts, Grounds of appeal and prayer for Condonation of delay. He also

Mohammad Parwaiz Alam, Bihar vs. NFAC, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 250/PAT/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.249&250/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mohammad Parwaiz Alam………………………………..………….……Appellant Alam Mansion Ararai, Basantpur, Ward-21, Araria, Bihar-854311. [Pan: Agapa6710F] Vs. Nfac, Delhi…………..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Passed By 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’). Since, The Issues Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 7 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeals & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing On Different Dates. However, An Application Has Been Filed By The Ar Of The Assessee Stating That The Assessee Has Opted To Settle The Tax Dispute Under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas (Dtvsv)

Section 250

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 7 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the application, we find reasonable cause. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeals and proceed

Mohammad Parwaiz Alam, Bihar vs. NFAC, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 249/PAT/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.249&250/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mohammad Parwaiz Alam………………………………..………….……Appellant Alam Mansion Ararai, Basantpur, Ward-21, Araria, Bihar-854311. [Pan: Agapa6710F] Vs. Nfac, Delhi…………..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Passed By 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’). Since, The Issues Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 7 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeals & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing On Different Dates. However, An Application Has Been Filed By The Ar Of The Assessee Stating That The Assessee Has Opted To Settle The Tax Dispute Under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas (Dtvsv)

Section 250

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 7 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the application, we find reasonable cause. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeals and proceed

Ranjay Kumar Diwakar, Nawada vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Bihar Sharif

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.227/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjay Kumar Diwakar.………………………………………..………….……Appellant M/S Nidhi Pharma, Purani Jail Road, Nawada, Bihar-805110. [Pan: Aoppd7881R] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(5), Bihar Sharif.……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 12.09.2023 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 79 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Case Of The Assessee, Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued For Calling The Assessee To Submit True & Correct Return Of Income In Respect Of Assessment Year 2017-18 And

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 79 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the application, we find reasonable cause and the delay was not intentional. We, therefore, condone the delay

Narayani Educational Health and Charitable Trust, Patna vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 303/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.301 To 303/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Narayani Educational Health & Charitable Trust……..………….……Appellant A/78, P. C Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna, Bihar-800020. [Pan: Aactn2955K] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, Patna....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders All Dated 28.04.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 106 Days In Filing All The Present Appeals. The Assessee Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & The Delays Were Not Intentional. We, Therefore

Section 153CSection 250Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

outset, the Registry has informed that there are delays of 106 days in filing all the present appeals. The assessee filed applications for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the applications, we find reasonable cause which was beyond the control of the assessee and the delays ... were not intentional. We, therefore, I.T.A. Nos.301 to 303/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Narayani Educational Health And Charitable Trust condone the delay in filing the appeals and adjudicate the appeals on merits of the case. 3. First, we take up the issue in respect

Narayani Educational Health and Charitable Trust, Patna vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.301 To 303/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Narayani Educational Health & Charitable Trust……..………….……Appellant A/78, P. C Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna, Bihar-800020. [Pan: Aactn2955K] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, Patna....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders All Dated 28.04.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 106 Days In Filing All The Present Appeals. The Assessee Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & The Delays Were Not Intentional. We, Therefore

Section 153CSection 250Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

outset, the Registry has informed that there are delays of 106 days in filing all the present appeals. The assessee filed applications for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the applications, we find reasonable cause which was beyond the control of the assessee and the delays ... were not intentional. We, therefore, I.T.A. Nos.301 to 303/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Narayani Educational Health And Charitable Trust condone the delay in filing the appeals and adjudicate the appeals on merits of the case. 3. First, we take up the issue in respect

Narayani Educational Health and Charitable Trust, Patna vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 301/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.301 To 303/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Narayani Educational Health & Charitable Trust……..………….……Appellant A/78, P. C Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna, Bihar-800020. [Pan: Aactn2955K] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, Patna....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders All Dated 28.04.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 106 Days In Filing All The Present Appeals. The Assessee Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & The Delays Were Not Intentional. We, Therefore

Section 153CSection 250Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

outset, the Registry has informed that there are delays of 106 days in filing all the present appeals. The assessee filed applications for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the applications, we find reasonable cause which was beyond the control of the assessee and the delays ... were not intentional. We, therefore, I.T.A. Nos.301 to 303/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Narayani Educational Health And Charitable Trust condone the delay in filing the appeals and adjudicate the appeals on merits of the case. 3. First, we take up the issue in respect

The Nemmara Co Op Urban Bank Ltd, Palakkad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Palakkad

In the result, the appeals as well as the stay petitions filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 602/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Amaljith, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

opted for VSVS 2024, and there is no loss of revenue to the department, there is no significance in dealing with the condonation of delay. 6. In the result, the appeals as well as the stay petitions filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 07th

The Nemmara Co Op Urban Bank Ltd, Palakkad vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Palakkad

In the result, the appeals as well as the stay petitions filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 601/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Amaljith, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

opted for VSVS 2024, and there is no loss of revenue to the department, there is no significance in dealing with the condonation of delay. 6. In the result, the appeals as well as the stay petitions filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 07th

The Nemmara Co Op Urban Bank, Palakkad vs. ITO Ward 5, Palakkad

In the result, the appeals as well as the stay petitions filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 600/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Amaljith, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

opted for VSVS 2024, and there is no loss of revenue to the department, there is no significance in dealing with the condonation of delay. 6. In the result, the appeals as well as the stay petitions filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 07th

Awadh Public Schol Academy, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as being barred by limitation

ITA 467/LKW/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2002-03 Awadh Public School Income Tax Officer V. Academy Range-V(1) 239-Leela Building, Senani Income Tax Office, Vihar, Raebareilly Road, Lucknow. Lucknow. Pan:Aaata7665H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 02 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Namita S. Pandey, CIT(DR)
Section 12A

opposed the submissions. She submitted that this is a classical case of negligence where after a huge inordinate delay, the assessee is seeking condonation of delay or unsubstantiated grounds. She contended that the assessee is required to explain delay of each day. 5. We have heard the rival contention ... plausible explanation, we hold accordingly. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed on the ground of limitation. The aforesaid application for seeking condonation of delay is hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is also dismissed being barred by limitation. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bennet Pharmaceuticals Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 782/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80CSection 80I

case of Cosme Matias Menezes (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [379 ITR 31] held as follows: "It is well settled that in matters of condonation of delay a highly pedantic approach should be eschewed and a justice oriented approach should be adopted and a party should not be made to suffer

Bennet Pharmaceuticals Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 781/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80CSection 80I

case of Cosme Matias Menezes (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [379 ITR 31] held as follows: "It is well settled that in matters of condonation of delay a highly pedantic approach should be eschewed and a justice oriented approach should be adopted and a party should not be made to suffer

M/S Moonlight Residency Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O.-13(1), Kolkata

Accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 1990/Kol/2024 is allowed with the deletion of penalty levied

ITA 1990/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Also The Assessee Could Not Succeed Primarily Because There Was An Alleged Delay Of More Than 7 Years In The Filing Of First Appeal. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Condone The Delay & Thereafter Dismissed The Assessee’S Appeal.

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 698Section 69B

because there was an alleged delay of more than 7 years in the filing of first appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and thereafter dismissed the assessee’s appeal. 2. Aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal with ... circumstances of the case the action of the Ld. CIT(A) to confirm the addition made by the A.O. by rejecting the condonation of delay petition is in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore the order passed is bad in law. 3. That without prejudice

M/S Moonlight Residency Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O.-13(1), Kolkata

Accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 1990/Kol/2024 is allowed with the deletion of penalty levied

ITA 1989/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Also The Assessee Could Not Succeed Primarily Because There Was An Alleged Delay Of More Than 7 Years In The Filing Of First Appeal. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Condone The Delay & Thereafter Dismissed The Assessee’S Appeal.

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 698Section 69B

because there was an alleged delay of more than 7 years in the filing of first appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and thereafter dismissed the assessee’s appeal. 2. Aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal with ... circumstances of the case the action of the Ld. CIT(A) to confirm the addition made by the A.O. by rejecting the condonation of delay petition is in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore the order passed is bad in law. 3. That without prejudice

Arthanari Mudaliar Mathavan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

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

ITA 2898/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2898/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthanari Mudaliar Mathavan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Prop. Sri Murugan Textiles, 140-A, Ward 1(6), Kalarampatty Main Road, Salem. Salem 636 015. [Pan:Ajcpm1849E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Senthil Kumar, Advocate, Er. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil Kumar, Advocate, ErFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. CIT
Section 69A

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 350 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we 2 I.T.A. No.2898/Chny/24 find the reasons stated

T.M. Handlooms Private Limited, Sellur, Madurai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2, Income Tax Office, Madurai

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

ITA 2553/CHNY/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2552 & 2553/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 T.M. Handlooms Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 4, Ahimsapuram Fourth Street, Income Tax, Sellur, Madurai 625 002. Corporate Circle 2, Madurai. [Pan:Aabct6418R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 28.11.2023 & 03.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

filed with a delay of 250 days for AY 2011-12 and 275 days for AY 2012-13. The assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay with the support of notarized affidavits. 2 I.T.A. Nos.2552 & 2553/Chny/24 3. The ld. AR Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate drew our attention to the petitions ... condonation of delay and argued the assessee was really prevented due to reasons stated in the petitions and prayed to condone the delay. The ld. DR Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT, vehemently opposed the submissions of the ld. AR. She argued that the reasons explained by the assessee are general

T.M Handlooms Private Limited, Sellur, Madurai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2, Income Tax Office, Madurai

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

ITA 2552/CHNY/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2552 & 2553/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 T.M. Handlooms Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 4, Ahimsapuram Fourth Street, Income Tax, Sellur, Madurai 625 002. Corporate Circle 2, Madurai. [Pan:Aabct6418R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 28.11.2023 & 03.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

filed with a delay of 250 days for AY 2011-12 and 275 days for AY 2012-13. The assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay with the support of notarized affidavits. 2 I.T.A. Nos.2552 & 2553/Chny/24 3. The ld. AR Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate drew our attention to the petitions ... condonation of delay and argued the assessee was really prevented due to reasons stated in the petitions and prayed to condone the delay. The ld. DR Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT, vehemently opposed the submissions of the ld. AR. She argued that the reasons explained by the assessee are general

Manjit Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6534/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 54Section 54FSection 68

noted that there is a delay of 420 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal on which petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. Assessee submitted that there was a change in Authorised Representative from the one who represented before the ld. Assessing ... condonation of the said delay along with an affidavit. Upon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we deem it fit to condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay to take up the matter for adjudication

Kumbharwada Welfare Centre, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (A), Mumbai

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

ITA 6388/MUM/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainkumbharwada Welfare Vs. Ito, Ward 20(2)(1) Piramal Chamber. Centre 153/157, Chimna Butcher St., Null Bazar Maharashtra – 400003 Pan/Gir No. Aaatk0045P (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 12Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

present appeal before me. In this regard, Ld. AR has taken my attention to the application 2 Kumbharwada Welfare Centre, Mumbai for seeking condonation of delay, whereas, it is submitted that during the period of preparation of appeal, the chartered accountant (CA) of the assessee was admitted to hospital ... hospital. 3. On the other hand LD DR has not filed any counter affidavit to controvert the contents of the application for seeking condonation of delay. 4. Therefore, considering the contents of the application and taking into account the illness of the chartered accountant and other medical documents supported