← 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

Raju Jhanghel, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

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

ITA 445/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 445 & 446/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Raju Janghel, C/E Beside Trivenia Vs Income Tax Officer-1(2), Office Of Houshal Pan Thela, Gudhiyari, Ito-1(2), Cr Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Agrpj0572D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05.02.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

informing me i.e., mistakenly, about the facts & details of the assessee's case by my office staff, in time.” 7. The condonation of delay in filing this appeal is on the record. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay was not due to any negligence or lack of due diligence ... Delhi High Court has held that in absence of anything malafide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, the Court should normally condone the delay as the intent is always to promote substantial justice following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag

Alhamd Education & Welfare Trust, Hazaribagh vs. ITO - Ward 1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Hazaribagh

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

ITA 190/RAN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(1)Section 250

over technicalities, and when the issues involved require adjudication on merits, the appellate authority should adopt a liberal approach in matters relating to condonation of delay. In the present case, we are o the considered view that the matter deserves to be restored to the file

Bank of India Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Kanpur vs. ITO, Civil Lines

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

ITA 840/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow05 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 80P(2)(d)

time of hearing, representative for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) unfairly and unjustly dismissed the assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. He further submitted that the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A) should be set aside with the direction to pass ... dismissed the assessee’s appeal on limitation ground, treating the assessee’s appeal as time barred. The assessee’s application for condonation of delay was not considered favourably by learned CIT(A). From the records, it is evident that there was sufficient cause, within the meaning of section

Uttar Pradesh Diploma Engineers Mahasangh, Lucknow vs. Dy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow05 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 28Section 56Section 71

assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications, duly supported by affidavits, for condonation of delay in filing of these appeals pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeals ... hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeals. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeals before us, the delay in filing of these appeals

Punjab National Bank, Baijnath vs. ITO(TDS), Palampur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 778/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, Hon'ble Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally. We may make reference to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

days whereas other appeals, namely, ITA 748, 777 and 778/CHD/2025 are time barred by 634 days. 3. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. According to the assessee, this delay happened on account of non-prosecution of litigation by the earlier counsel. We have directed the ld. counsel ... also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction

Punjab National Bank, Baijnath vs. ITO(TDS), Palampur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 777/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, Hon'ble Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally. We may make reference to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

days whereas other appeals, namely, ITA 748, 777 and 778/CHD/2025 are time barred by 634 days. 3. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. According to the assessee, this delay happened on account of non-prosecution of litigation by the earlier counsel. We have directed the ld. counsel ... also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction

Punjab National Bank, Baijnath vs. ITO(TDS), Palampur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 748/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, Hon'ble Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally. We may make reference to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

days whereas other appeals, namely, ITA 748, 777 and 778/CHD/2025 are time barred by 634 days. 3. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. According to the assessee, this delay happened on account of non-prosecution of litigation by the earlier counsel. We have directed the ld. counsel ... also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction

Punjab National Bank, Parwanoo vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Solan

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 410/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, Hon'ble Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally. We may make reference to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

days whereas other appeals, namely, ITA 748, 777 and 778/CHD/2025 are time barred by 634 days. 3. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. According to the assessee, this delay happened on account of non-prosecution of litigation by the earlier counsel. We have directed the ld. counsel ... also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Raj Goenka, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1801/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2022-23 Dcit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata……...……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Raj Goenka…………………………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent 10Th Floor Magma House, 24, Park Street Park Street, Kol-16. [Pan: Adlpg8181C] Appearances By: Shri S B Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 05, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.04.2025 Of The Cit(Appeals)-27, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 08 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

days. The revenue has filed a petition for condonation of the delay. After considering the reasons cited in the petition for condonation of delay, we find that the reasons are valid and consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal

Vijayasekar Jeayanthi, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncq-2(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 2683/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2683/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Vijayasekar Jeayanthi, The Income Tax Officer, 84, Tagore Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), Sivanandha Colony, Coimbatore Coimbatore -641 012. Pan: Adcpj 7575Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri A. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

There is delay of 152 days in filing the appeal. The 2. assessee filed an affidavit along with petition for condonation of delay of 152 days by stating as under:- 1. The CIT(A), NFAC Delhi has passed order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act on 12.02.2025 setting aside ... wilful default or any contumacious disregard of any obligation cast on the appellants. 10. In the circumstances it is prayed to condone the delay of 170 days in presenting the appeal and render justice. 3. The Ld.DR on the other hand seriously opposed the condonation of delay. On going through

M/S. Buhari Holding Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2648/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2648/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Buhari Holding Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner No.5, Moores Road, Vs. Of Income Tax, Egmore, Central Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 006. Chennai. Pan: Aaacb 2679M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

outset, we find that there is a delay of 152 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee filed affidavit seeking condonation of delay on the ground that delay had occurred for the reason that assessee company on receipt of consequential order to the CIT(A)’s order dated ... delay in filing the present appeal be condoned. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. Senior DR, Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam seriously opposed the condonation of delay by stating that the assessee had realized the necessity of filing of appeal only after receipt of consequential order

Honnappa Munivenkatareddy, Chikkaballapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2488/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Honnappa Munivenkatareddy, #316, Overhead Tank Road, The Income Tax Officer, Chickballapur H.O, Chickballapur, Ward-2(1)(1), Vs. Karnataka – 562 101. Bengaluru. Pan: Aoxpm0334G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravikiran, CA
Section 147Section 148Section 54

filed the Appeal before us on 31.10.2025 and thereby causing a delay of 61 days. The Assessee preferred an application for condonation of delay. The claim of the Assessee is that he did not receive any E-mail id intimation or the order

ITO, Mumbai vs. Himanshu Sarda, Mumbai

ITA 5862/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarito,Ward-42(1)(2), Mumbai Vs Himanshu Sarda Room No. 734, Kautilya 705/706, Shivalaya Residency Chs Bhawan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Ltd., Thakur Complex, 90 Feet Mumbai-400051 Road, Kandivali East, Mumbai- 400101 Pan: Flpps9753F Appellant Respondent C.O.410/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5862/Mum/2025 A.Y. :2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv & Akshay Pawar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

cross-objection filed by the assessee with a delay for 37 days. The assessee explained the delay and filed the prayer for condonation of delay. We found there is sufficient cause for delay in filing the cross objection. Ld. DR had not made any objection against the submission

Sukhbir Singh, Guruharsahai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Ferozepur

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

ITA 28/ASR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Udayan Dasguptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 28/Asr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sukhbir Singh, Ito, C/O Sukhbir Singh & Co., V Ward 3(1), Faridkot Road, S Ferozepur Guruharsahai, Punjab 152022 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps2687M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Virtual Hearing

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

record and the A.Y. 2018-19 2 grounds of appeal we proceed to dispose off the appeal after hearing the Ld DR. 3. Condonation of Delay : It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is belatedly filed by 53 days and the assessee has filed an application explaining ... reasons we are satisfied that there has not been any intentional neglect on the part of the assessee and as such we condone the delay. 6. Brief facts are that the assessee is engaged in agricultural activity on lease hold lands and has disclosed agricultural income of Rs. 1.53 crores

Shri Mohd Amin Pampori, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Srinagar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 265/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Udayan Dasguptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 265/Asr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohd Amin Pampori, Ito, Khonmoh V Ward 2, Srinagar Ut J & K S Srinagar 190001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Czepp7634Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Virtual Hearing

For Appellant: Sh. Ubaid Nazir, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

emanated from the order of the AO (ward – 2, Srinagar) dated 22/12/2019 for AY 2017-18 passed u/s 144 of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay : It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is belatedly filed by 397 days and the assessee has filed an application explaining ... medical issues, we are satisfied that there has not been any intentional neglect on the part of the assessee and as such we condone the delay and admit the same for hearing on merits. 5. Brief facts are that the assessee is engaged in business and during the demo period

Bhisti Exports, Veraval vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4, Veraval

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

ITA 884/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot04 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

respectively. 2. These two appeals filed by the assessee are barred by limitation by 225 days. The assessee moved two separate petitions for condonations of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition for condonation of delay are same in both the appeals of different ... revenue stated that the assessee has failed to explain the sufficient cause, as the reasons explained by the assessee in the petition for condonation of delay are not sufficient reasons to condone such delays, therefore, the delay should not be condoned, and both the appeals of the assessee

Bhisti Exports, Veraval vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4, Veraval

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

ITA 883/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot04 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

respectively. 2. These two appeals filed by the assessee are barred by limitation by 225 days. The assessee moved two separate petitions for condonations of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition for condonation of delay are same in both the appeals of different ... revenue stated that the assessee has failed to explain the sufficient cause, as the reasons explained by the assessee in the petition for condonation of delay are not sufficient reasons to condone such delays, therefore, the delay should not be condoned, and both the appeals of the assessee

Mukesh Agarwal, Rourkela vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 1, Rourkela

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 631/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.631/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Mukesh Agarwal, Vs Ito Ward-1, Rourkela O-18, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. : Adipa 0575 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ayush Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm :

For Appellant: Shri Ayush Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

filed belatedly by 12 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation application along with affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal

Puja Agarwal, Rourkela vs. ITO Ward 1, Rourkela

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 628/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.628/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Puja Agarwal, Vs Ito Ward-1, Rourkela O-18, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. : Agwpa 5744 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ayush Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm :

For Appellant: Shri Ayush Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

filed belatedly by 12 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation application along with affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal

The Samastipur District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Samastipur vs. Deputy Commissioner, Darbhanga

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 508/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) provided various opportunities to the assessee as per para 4 of his order, 7 times opportunities were provided but the assessee did not respond any of the notices. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) after relying on various judgments decided the issue on 10.12.2022 on the basis of material available on record and upheld the order of the AO. 4. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the

For Respondent: Sh. Manab Adak, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

notices, proceedings, or PRAYER In view of the foregoing, the appellant most humbly prays that the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) may graciously: a) Condone the delay in seeking restoration/re-hearing of the appeal against the order dated 10.12.2022; b) Restore the appeal for hearing on merits and provide an opportunity ... before the ITAT on 20.11.2025. Accordingly, the delay was computed for 1076 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay noted supra but the reason given in the condonation petition is not “reasonable cause” for not filing appeal within the due date hearing