← 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

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

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 259/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

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 258/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

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 257/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

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

Geeta Krushna Mahila Urban Credit Co Op Soc Limited Nagpur, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee IS allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the condition as stated in Para–6 above

ITA 246/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 Suren DuragkarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

filing the appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. We also find that the assessee has filed an application dated nil for condonation of delay in filing the appeal which is supported by photocopy of Affidavit. The original Affidavit has not been furnished by the assessee. However, we find

Ajay Agarkar, Ujjain vs. CIT(A), Madhya Pradesh

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 337/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2018-19 Ajay Aagarkar Nfac House No.4, Kalpataru Delhi Avenue, Dewas Road, Near बनाम/ Rukmani Motors Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abhpa2638L Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Nerkar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement .01.2025

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

registry that the appeal is filed belatedly by 52 (fifty two) days. The assessee has filed an application praying for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for delay, along with sworn affidavit executed on 15/01/2025. The assessee submitted that the order of the CIT(A) has been passed on 22/12/2023 ... file the appeal , and the tribunal fees was paid on 4th April, 2024 and appeal filed on 13th April, 2024. As such we condone the delay of 52 days and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as follows

The Ambala Board of Education, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

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

ITA 780/CHANDI/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 780/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2023-24 The Ambala Board Of The Ito, Education, बनाम Chandigarh Plot No.151, Industrial Vs. Area, Phase Ii, Chandigarh 160002 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabat0668H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा""रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(E)’], For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Was A Delay Of 17 Days In Filing Of The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Filed A Letter Dated 23.7.2024 For 780-Chd-2024 The Ambala Board Of Education, Chandigarh

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Counsel for the Assessee has filed a letter dated 23.7.2024 for 780-Chd-2024 The Ambala Board of Education, Chandigarh 2 condonation of delay on behalf of The Ambala Board of Education, Chandigarh, which is reproduced as under:- 780-Chd-2024 The Ambala Board of Education, Chandigarh ... delay in filing of the appeal, the delay of 17 days is hereby condoned. 4. The ld. DR has no objection to the condonation of delay. 5. The ld. Counsel of the Assessee, at the very outset, pointed out that the ld. CIT(E) has rejected the registration

Punjab National Bank, Dal Lake Dharamshala Cantt vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) TDS, Panchkula

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

ITA 415/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 415/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Punjab National Bank, The Jcit बनाम Dal Lake Dharmshala (Osd)Tds, Cantt. Sector 2, Vs. Tehsil Dharmshala 176216 Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ptlpi2710F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा""रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None (Withdrawal Application) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.02.2023 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Was A Delay Of 66 Days In Filing Of The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Filed A Letter Giving Detailed

For Appellant: None (Withdrawal application)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 254(2)

Assessee has filed a letter giving detailed 415-Chd-2023 Punajb National Bank, Dharmshala 2 reasoning along with affidavit dated 19.07.2023 for condonation of delay, which is reproduced as under:- 415-Chd-2023 Punajb National Bank, Dharmshala 415-Chd-2023 Punajb National Bank, Dharmshala 4 3. In the affidavit

Punjab National Bank, Dal Lake Dharamshala Cantt vs. Dy. Commisisoner of Income Tax (TDS), Panchkula

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

ITA 414/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 414/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Punjab National Bank, The Dcit (Tds), Dal Lake Dharmshala बनाम Sector 2, Cantt. Panchkula Vs. Tehsil Dharmshala, Distt. Kangra 176216 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ptlpi2710F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा""रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None (Withdrawal Application) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2023 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 40 Days In Filing Of The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Ld.

For Appellant: None (Withdrawal application)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 254(2)

Tribunal. The ld. 414-Chd-2023 Punjab National Bank, Dharmshala 2 Counsel for the Assessee has filed a letter dated 23.7.2024 for condonation of delay on behalf of Punjab National Bank, Dharmshala, which is reproduced as under:- 414-Chd-2023 Punjab National Bank, Dharmshala 3. In the affidavit, the Branch

Shree Mahibavan Vibhag Na Karmachari Dhiran & Grahak Sahkari Man Limited, Godhra vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1)(2), Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1913/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Smt.Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 250

present appeal be condoned and the assessee be provided an opportunity to represent its case. 4. The Ld.DR vehemently objected to the condonation of delay stating that the assessee has been non-complainant throughout not participating both in the assessment proceedings as well as in the appellate proceedings before ... challenging the ex- parte order in time. Therefore, taking a sympathetic view and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 65 days in filing appeal. Further, considering that the assessee has not been heard by any of the authorities below, we restore

Shri Dudhganga Vedganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ACIT/JCIT, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1756/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 143(3)Section 250

Aggrieved assessee approached the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 72 days. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, without condoning the delay. 5. Similarly, in ITA No.1756/PUN/2024 for the A.Y.2018-19 also, the assessee declared loss of Rs.7.74 crore. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS ... assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 116 days and the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. 6. In ITA No.1755/PUN/2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18, the assessee filed return of income on 27.10.2017 declaring Nil income

Shri Dudhganga Vedganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1755/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 143(3)Section 250

Aggrieved assessee approached the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 72 days. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, without condoning the delay. 5. Similarly, in ITA No.1756/PUN/2024 for the A.Y.2018-19 also, the assessee declared loss of Rs.7.74 crore. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS ... assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 116 days and the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. 6. In ITA No.1755/PUN/2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18, the assessee filed return of income on 27.10.2017 declaring Nil income

Shri Dudhaganga Vedganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ACIT/JCIT, Pune

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

ITA 1754/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 143(3)Section 250

Aggrieved assessee approached the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 72 days. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, without condoning the delay. 5. Similarly, in ITA No.1756/PUN/2024 for the A.Y.2018-19 also, the assessee declared loss of Rs.7.74 crore. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS ... assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 116 days and the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. 6. In ITA No.1755/PUN/2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18, the assessee filed return of income on 27.10.2017 declaring Nil income

Saikat Chatterjee, Kolkata vs. ITO 61(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1866/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250

Counsel of the assessee is that his case to be restored in the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing by condoning the delay. He has also placed decision of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of DIT(IT) vs. Western Union Financial Services Inc. reported ... even authority for departmental appeal is a 'court' for purposes of section 14 of the Limitation Act. 3.1.5 Where in an application for condonation of delay, assessee points out that were pursuing a remedy before another appellate forum which ought to be excluded, said averment is sufficient to invoke section

Mr. Kallappa Shadakshari, Tiptur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tiptur

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

ITA 108/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri M.R Venkatesh Babu, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT

appeal has been filed by the assessee before us with the delay 670 days. The assessee has also filed a separate Application for Condonation of Delay supported by the affidavit, stating that the delay in filing the appeal was unintentional and caused due to bona fide reasons. The assessee ... substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Further, it has been held that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay, especially when the delay is not due to mala-fide intent. 4. The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) opposed the condonation of delay

Neumec Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Bangaluru

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

ITA 6304/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailneumec Builders Private Limited, G-3, Natwar Chambers, 94 Nagindas Master Road, Oak Lane, Fort, Mumbai - 400023 ............... Appellant V/S Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc Bengaluru ……………… Respondent Pan : Aaccn0519J

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan KakkadFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 119Section 143(1)Section 250

filed within the due date. In this regard, the assessee submitted that it has already ITA No.6304-Mum-2024 (A.Y. 2021-22) 3 requested for condonation of delay before the Central Board of Direct Taxes under section 119 and a decision on its application is still pending. The learned Addl./Joint ... Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordering and directing the Respondents to condone the delay in filing the return of income (Exhibit C) and form 10-IC (Exhibit K0 and thereafter direct Respondent No.5 to delete the variation made

Chandra Prakash Goplani, Bengaluru vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Agra

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

ITA 166/AGR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)

Bench, Agra beyond limitation period as prescribed u/s. 253(3) of the Act. It is submitted that the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit of the assessee.The main bone of contention of the assessee is that the assessee had shifted from Agra to Bangalore ... Appeals), the address of Agra is shown by ld CIT(A) in its appellate order. My attention was drawn to the application for condonation of delay as well as affidavit filed by the assessee, which are placed on record in file. It was submitted that when the assessee was filing

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Digboi vs. Arunachal Tea Company, Margherita

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 6Section 7Section 80Section 801E

grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 2.1 it is observed that the appeal is delayed and an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the Ld. AO which is as under: Sub: Prayer for condonation of delay with respect to filing appeal before ... 27/05/2024 I.T.A. No.: 133/GTY/2024 C.O. No.: 2/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Arunachal Tea Company. Therefore, it is requested of your good office to condone the delay due to the technical issues and election duties of the officers-in-charge which has already been mentioned above and allow us to file

Shri Amit Arvind Bande, Gadchiroli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Chandrapur, Chandrapur

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

ITA 221/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: MS Alfiya Rozie, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

merits. However, the learned CIT(A) has not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of assessee without condoning the delay. He submitted that since the learned CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merits as contemplated u/sec.250(6) of the Act, the matter ... restored 4 ITA.No.221/NAG./2024 back to the file of learned CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and pass orders as per law by giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. The Learned DR on the other hand, relied on the orders

Vidhi Minerals and Alloys Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 43B

negligence on the part of the assessee company. The assessee company also submitted that his Authorised Representative has filed affidavit too for condonation of delay before the learned CIT(A) by admitting the delay in filing of the appeal before the learned CIT(A) on oath. However, the learned ... please be provided to the assessee company by remitting the matter in issue back to the learned CIT(A) for afresh adjudication by condoning the delay of 1146 days in filing the appeal before him. 5 ITA.No.219/NAG./2024 6. The Learned DR on the other hand, relied

Indian Magic Eye Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1579/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Arun PatankarFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270

reason enough or supporting evidence or even an affidavit to justify its case for such a delay, the appellant’s request for condonation of delay being turn down by this Appellant authority and the additional documents being rejected. This Appellate authority rejects the appeal of the appellant assessee and resultantly ... /NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before us that the reason of dismissing the appeal by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was non-condonation of delay of 561 days. In this regard, it was submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in an order passed in suo moto application has excluded