“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

Manish Kumar Prasad, Patna vs. Dc/Ac, Cir-5, Patna

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 477/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.477/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manish Kumar Prasad…………….....…..…………………....Appellant Prop. Laxmi International, Purushottam Plaza, Makhania Kuan, Patna, Bihar- 800004. [Pan: Bgppk2783L] Vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-5, Patna….……….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 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 54 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case.

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)

that there is a delay of 54 days in filing the present appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the application, we find reasonable cause for such delay. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing

Government Polytechnic, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 458/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S Balakrishnanआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.456, 457 & 458/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Government Polytechnic, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Tds Ward-1, Pan: Aaagg1122Q Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 200ASection 234E

NFAC, the assessee has filed petition explaining the reasons for belated filing of the TDS returns with a prayer for condonation of delay. Before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee has also submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority may be condoned

Government Polytechnic, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 457/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 200ASection 234E

Government Polytechnic, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 200ASection 234E

Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Sansthan Trust, Bhopal vs. CIT Exemption, Bhopal

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 882/IND/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:Na Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Cit (Exemption) Sansthan Trust Bhopal 22 Vasundhara Colony बनाम/ Behind Bank Colony Vs. Jahangirabad Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aarts6174N Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)

seen that the appeal is belatedly filed by 214 days . The assesee has filed an application praying for condonation of delay. The order of the Ld CIT ( E ) , Bhopal , was passed on 14/03/2024, and the last date of filing apperal before the tribunal was 13th May, 2024, which actually filed ... bench. 3. After hearing both the parties, we are of the view that the delay is due to bona fide reasons therefore, we condone the delay. 4. The ground of appeal taken by the assesee in the memorandum of appeal are as follows: “1. The order appealed against

Prof. Rajendra Singh Shikshan Samiti, Mandsaur vs. DCIT, CPC Bengaluru and ITO, Exemption, Ujjain

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 420/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2019-20 Prof. Rajendra Singh Dcit, Cpc Gangaluru Shikshan Samiti, Mandsaur बनाम/ Saraswati Shishu Mandir Vs. Keshav Nagar (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeap0905C Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

before the Tribunal was 20th April but the same is belatedly filed on 4th May 2024. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in the form of an affidavit sworn Page 1 of 8 Prof. Rajendra Singh ITA No. 420/Ind/2024 – AY 2019-20, by Smt. Hansa Jain ... heard on merits. 3. Ld. DR has not objected to the same and considering the grounds stated by the assessee we condone the delay of 14days and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 4. Grounds of appeal has taken by the assesee in form 36 are as under

Jaswant Singh, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 882/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 882/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Jaswant Singh, The Ito, C/O Tej Mohan Singh, बनाम Ward 5(2), Advocate, Chandigarh Vs. # 527, Sec. 10-D, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bglps1246Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate

Section 10Section 144

Counsel of the Assessee has filed an Affidavit on behalf of the Assessee, 882-Chd-2024 Jaswant Singh, Chandigarh 3 making prayer for condonation of delay. The affidavit of the Assessee is as under: 882-Chd-2024 Jaswant Singh, Chandigarh 4 4. We have considered the reasons for the delay ... Assessee, the Assessee should not be made to suffer. 5. The ld. DR did not have any objection for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned. 6. During proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee also brought it on record that

Balaram Construction Limited, Banaskantha vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as non- maintainable

ITA 727/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Balaram Construction Ltd. The Pcit 309, 3Rd Floor, Shital-9 Vs Ahmedabad-1 Opp. Bihari Bagh, Palanpur Ahmedabad – 380 015 Banaskantha – 385 001 (Gujarat) (Gujarat) Pan: Aaacb 6264 C

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

initiated against the assessee. 9. As there is a delay in furnishing appeal affidavit explaining delay is submitted with appeal memo praying for condonation of delay. 10. The appellant craves, leave, to add, to alter and or modify any ground of appeal.” Balaram Construction Ltd. vs. PCIT ... Registry to be delayed for filing by 324 days. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee, therefore, was first heard on the aspect of condonation of delay. Our attention was drawn in this regard to the Affidavit filed by the Director of the assessee-company explaining the reason for the delay

Mahendra Narayan Bhoir, Raigad vs. Nafac, National Faceless Appeal Center

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

ITA 2743/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 271(1)(c)

There is a delay of 50 days in filing of the present appeal. In this regard, the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. We are satisfied with the explanation of the assessee that he was prevented by reasonable cause for not filing the present

Suresh Dattatray Gurav, Bavdhan Pune vs. ITO Ward 13(2), Pune

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

ITA 2172/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2172/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Suresh Dattatray Gurav, V The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.5, Mangesh Garden, S Ward-2(3), Nashik. Bavdhan Khurd, Mulshi, Pune – 411021. Pan: Aaypg3217D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Harshal Nasikkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ratnakar Shelake – Add.Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under

Section 148Section 148ASection 250

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the request for condonation of delay made by the appellant in the appropriate space provided in Form No 35 in a pedantic manner without providing an opportunity to substantiate the reasons ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the request for condonation of delay without considering the fact that a substantial question was law was involved in the appeal in so far as the income from the immovable transaction

Ajinath Santram Kharat, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 1771/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 4Section 5Section 56(2)(vii)

appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Condonation of Delay : 5. There was a Delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal. We have perused the submission of the assessee and are convinced that there ... sufficient cause for delay. Accordingly, we condoned the delay. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31st January, 2025. Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिनांक / Dated: 31st Jan, 2024/ SGR* आदेशकीप्रतिलिपिअग्रेषित

Punjailakalamangalam Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society Ltd. K 484, Erode vs. ACIT (OSD) Ward 2(3), Erode

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2843/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2843/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Punjailakalamangalam Primary The Acit Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society Ward 2(3), बनाम/ Ltd. K484 Erode. 1, Karur Main Road, Vs. Ganapathipalayam, Modakkurichi, Erode – 638 153. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aabap-8122-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashwin D. Gowda (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D. Gowda (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

also drew attention to the condonation petition preferred by the assessee before appropriate authority u/s 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay in filing of Income Tax Return. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, referred to the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras. 4. We find ... could not be faulted with. 5. Having said so, we find that remedial mechanism has been provided to the assessee to seek condonation of delay before appropriate authority u/s 119 of the Act. The same has already been availed by the assessee and the condonation petition is pending for disposal

The Quaide Milleth Educational and Social Trust, Cehnnai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward 1, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2814/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2814/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Quaide Milleth Educational & Ito बनाम/ Social Trust Exemptions Ward-1 #82, Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabtt-3583-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ashwin D. Gowda (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D. Gowda (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

file this form within due date u/s 139(1). Further, the remedy available to the assessee would be to file petition for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act before appropriate authority as per Circular No.03/2020 dated 03-01-2020. This circular authorizes the Commissioner of Income ... admit the applications filed for belated filing of Form No.9A / 10 and condone the delay. Accordingly, the action of Ld. AO was confirmed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. It is quite discernible that the new amendment as applicable w.e.f

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sps Finquest Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4367/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: CIT(A) challenging the above addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee and deleted the disallowance of INR.5,48,313/- made under Section 14A of the Act as well as the addition of INR.10,00,00,000/- made under Section 68 of the Act.

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

days in filing the appeal. The Learned 2 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Departmental Representative, after taking us through the application seeking condonation of delay, submitted that the delay be condoned. The Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee did not raised any serious objection. In view of the reasons stated ... application seeking condonation of delay, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Revenue on merits. Ground No.1 8. Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of INR.5

Late Smt. Dayawanti Devi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1263/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Sangeeta Bansal, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income 425, Jagriti Enclave, Tax, Central-3, Delhi-1100 92 New Delhi Pan No. Aaipb2360E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shilpi Gupta, CA & Shri SheryFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, SR. DR

Section 263Section 4

assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shall place such

Rajendra Agrawal, Biroli Bazar vs. ITO Ward 3(1) Purnea, Purnia

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 422/PAT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.422/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rajendra Agrawal.……………….....…..…………………....Appellant New Sipahi Tola, Maranga Road, Bihar – 85301. [Pan: Aqhpa2439E] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Purnia....….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 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 18 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 Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & 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 Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Engaged In Farming Activities. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(2)(c)Section 250

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 18 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 which was beyond the control of the assessee and the delay ... intentional. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeal and adjudicate the appeal on merits of the case. 3. Brief facts of the care are that the assessee is an individual and is engaged in farming activities. The case of the assessee was reopened I.T.A. No.422/Pat/2024 Assessment Year

Dileep Kumar Sah, Siwan vs. ITO Ward2(3), Siwan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 367/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.367/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dileep Kumar Sah……………….....…..…………………....Appellant Makhdoom Sarai, Turha Toli, Siwan, Bihar-841226. [Pan: Gvnps8999L] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Siwan....….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.09.2023 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 134 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause For Such Delay. 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 The Assessee Is An Individual & Declared His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 At

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

that there is a delay of 134 days in filing the present appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the application, we find reasonable cause for such delay. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing

Jivachh Yadav, Saharsa, Bihar vs. CIT (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 338/PAT/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.338/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jivachh Yadav.………………..….....…..…………………....Appellant P.O & P.S Chandrayan, Nawhatta, Bihar-852201. [Pan: Ahfpy6939A] Vs. Cit(Appeal), Nfac, Delhi..….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.09.2023 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 116 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Engaged In Retail Business Of Fertilizer & Seeds. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act For The Relevant Assessment

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40A(3)Section 69A

that there is a delay of 116 days in filing the present appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the application, we find reasonable cause for such delay. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing

Sumedh Sopanrao Manwar, Washim vs. ITO Ward 2 Akola, Akola

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 261/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

find the cause for delay. The Appellate authority has to examine whether the sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for condoning the delay and whether such cause is acceptable or not. Even though substantial justice should not be defeated by technicalities but that does not mean that ... above discussion and considering the facts and, position of the law on this issue, I find that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of appeal by the appellant and thus the application of the appellant for condonation of delay is hereby rejected. 6.2 Since

Sumedh Sopanrao Manwar, Washim vs. ITO Ward 2 Akola, Akola

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 260/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 144Section 147Section 69A