← 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

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

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

ITA 1578/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

Parmeshwar Param Seva Foundation, Nashik vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1507/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12ASection 80G

assessee has filed this appeal with a delay of 218 days. The assessee has filed an application along with a sworn affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal stating therein the reasons for delay as under : “1. The order u's 80G(5) passed ... assessee, we are of the view that the delay is not intentional or deliberate but attributable to the sufficient cause. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing of the appeal and proceed to decide the appeal. 3 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed

Anandakrishnan Badrinarayanan, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp Ward 4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2806/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.: 2806/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Anandakrishnan The Income Tax Officer, Badrinarayanan, V. Corporate Ward 4(1), 13, 3Rd Floor, Rams Apartment, Chennai. 181, Ttk Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aacpb 6471A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 18.03.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 171 Days In Appeal Filed By The Assessee, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Reasons For Delay Has Been Filed. After Considering

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

outset, we find that there is a delay of 171 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons for delay has been filed. After considering :-2-: ITA. No: 2806/Chny/2024 the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties

R. Anbuvel Rajan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Range 1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 2166/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

outset, the assessee has filed At the outset, the assessee has filed petition for condonation of petition for condonation of delay of ‘262’ days along with affidavit, perusal of which reveals that delay of ‘262’ days along with affidavit, perusal of which reveals that delay of ‘262’ days along with ... pleads for leniency. After going through Therefore, the assessee pleads for leniency. After going through the contents of the affidavit and petition for condonation of delay, we find the contents of the affidavit and petition for condonation of delay, we find the contents of the affidavit and petition for condonation

R. Anbuvel Rajan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Rangel, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 2165/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

outset, the assessee has filed At the outset, the assessee has filed petition for condonation of petition for condonation of delay of ‘262’ days along with affidavit, perusal of which reveals that delay of ‘262’ days along with affidavit, perusal of which reveals that delay of ‘262’ days along with ... pleads for leniency. After going through Therefore, the assessee pleads for leniency. After going through the contents of the affidavit and petition for condonation of delay, we find the contents of the affidavit and petition for condonation of delay, we find the contents of the affidavit and petition for condonation

Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited, Goregaon East vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Mumbai

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

ITA 4670/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrihamon Cooling Systems V/S. Acit, Circle 12(2)(2), Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Mumbai 3A-8A, Main Frame, Royal Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Palms Complex, Goregaon Karve Road, New Marine East, Mumbai-4000065 Lines, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact2254Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Piyush AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Balwanth Das
Section 143(3)Section 250

distress as his ultimate holding company Hemon and Cia International based in Brussels had filed for bankruptcy. Accordingly, Ld. AR has requested for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Requisite application for condonation as well as an affidavit has been filed in this regard. 7. Considering the genuine ... that it is a fit case for condonation, we hereby P a g e | 4 A.Y. 2017-18 Hamon Cooling Systems Pvt. Ltd. condone the delay of 542 days in filing of appeal. Ld. AR has, further, submitted that the assessee could not make any compliance even during the proceedings

Sri Picklu Paul, Karimganj vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Silchar, Silchar

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

ITA 195/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

dated 02.07.2018. Thus, there is a delay in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed an application dated 02.07.2018 seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit. It is stated in the application that the assessee is the Proprietor of M/s. P.P. Jewellers, Karimganj in the District of Karimganj, Assam ... Page 2 of 12 I.T.A. No.: 195/GTY/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sri Picklu Paul. it is prayed to admit the appeal after condoning the delay considering the circumstances stated in the petition. It is further stated that the assessee had to leave for Karimganj for executing an affidavit

Cofre Do Fundo Da Cruz Al to De, Bambolim vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward - 1, Panaji

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 203/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2017-18 Cofre Do Fundo Da Cruz Alto De Bambolim 101/1, Holy Cross Shrine, Bambolim Gmc Complex, Bambolim, Goa-403202 Pan:Aabtc0675N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward-1, Panaji. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: Smt Pratibha R [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 246A(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

which prevented the assessee from filing the required ITR and Form 10B within the prescribed time limit, therefore the assessee trust applied for condonation of delay in filing such ITR & Form 10B and the same has be duly accepted by the Ld. CIT(E), Bengaluru. Pressing into service the certified

Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 451/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250Section 69

Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The appeal of the assessee is time barred by 22 day. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the averments made in the said application and the shortness of the delay, we condone the delay in filing this appeal

Dinesh Kumar, Patna vs. ITO Ward (5), Patna

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 427/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.427/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dinesh Kumar……………………….....…..…………………....Appellant C/O Bhurendra Prasad, Near B D Public School, Buddha Colony, Patna – 800001. [Pan: Bxbpk1456M] Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Patna…………. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shailendra Sinha, Ar 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 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17 By Showing Total Income Of Rs.2,71,810/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass Followed By Notices Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Asked The Assessee To Produce Books Of Accounts, Ledger, Cash Book Etc. Before Him But The Assessee Did Not Comply. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer After Verification Of Return Of Income Found That The Assessee Had Filed Balance Sheet Showing Gross Total Income Of Rs.36,00,712/- & The Assessee Incurred Miscellaneous

Section 143(2)Section 194Section 249(3)Section 250

remand back the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after condoning such delay. 5. We, after hearing the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, find that the appeal of the assessee was simply 2 I.T.A ... No.427/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dinesh Kumar dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground of condonation of delay of about 18 months in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) without looking into merits of the case and also the case of the assessee remained unrepresented before

Shrenikkumar Natvarlal Vora, New Pashupati Market vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(4), Aayakar Bhavan, Surat

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

ITA 529/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Shrenikkumar Natvarlal Vora, I.T.O., 1012 New Pashupati Market, Ring Ward 2(2)(4), Vs. Road, Surat-395002 (Gujarat) Aayakar Bhavan, Pan No. Aalpv 6626 N Surat. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 69

para 3 of impugned order. The ld. Sr.DR for the revenue submits that the assessee deserve no further leniency. On the plea of condonation of delay, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue submits that no reasonable explanation is offered by the assessee and delay may not be condoned. 2 Shrenikkumar ... submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. First we shall consider the plea of condonation of delay, we find that the assessee while filing appeal, provided e- mail address pankajvoraappeal@gmail.com and at the same time, the assessee opted option

Bharatkumar Dipak Kumar Jariwala L/H of Late Krishnaben Bharatkumar Jariwala, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(2)(2), Surat

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

ITA 1028/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Late Krishnaben Bharatkumar Jariwala, I.T.O., Through Legal Heir Bharatkumar Dipak Ward 2(2)(2), Vs. Kumar Jariwala, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura 4/420, Mapara Sheri, Begampura, Gate, Surat. Surat-395003. Pan No. Aigpj 5726 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

para 5 of impugned order. The ld. Sr.DR for the revenue submits that the assessee deserve no further leniency. On the plea of condonation of delay, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue submits that no reasonable explanation is offered by the assessee and delay may not be condoned ... submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. First we shall consider the plea of condonation of delay, we find that the assessee while filing appeal, provided e- mail address jagashthca1@gmail.com but the notices were sent on the e-mail bharatjariwala9@gmail.com

Nuruddin Alihusain Suratwala, Amatullah Manzil vs. ITO Ward 4(4) Nagpur, Bsnl Rttc Building

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: MS. Alfiya Rozie, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69

matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) with a delay of 433 days. The learned CIT(A) without considering the assessee’s condonation of delay affidavit, confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer, without deciding the appeal on merits. 3 ITA.No.459/NAG./2024 4. During the course of hearing ... Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in not condoning the delay without considering the submissions of the assessee with respect to the delay of 433 days. He submitted that the assessee is a power of attorney holder and the transaction in question

Gimatex Kamgar Karmachari Pat Sanstha, Hinganghat Dist Wardha vs. ITO Ward-2, Wardha

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/NAG/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh Kakani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 80P

satisfied with the reasons furnished for the delay of 1332 and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, during the course ... sec.80P deduction which is as per law. He submitted that he will an affidavit before the learned CIT(A) along with petition for condonation of delay and the learned CIT(A) be directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. 6. The Learned DR on the other

Vnit Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/NAG/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 80P

order of the Assessing Officer in disallowing claim of deduction u/sec.80P of the Act and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee ... that the assessee 3 ITA.No.162/NAG./2024 society is ready to file an affidavit before the learned CIT(A) along with petition for condonation of delay and the learned CIT(A) be directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. He further submitted that part of delay

The Vazrapukotturu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Srikakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 439/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.439/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) The Vazrapukotturu Primary V. Ito – Ward – 1 Income Tax Office, Aaykar Bhavan Agricultural Cooperative Credit Palakonda Road, Srikakulam – 532001 Society Limited Andhra Pradesh D.No. 12-3-71, Gandhi Nagar Kasibugga, Palasa, Srikakulam [Pan: Aadat1897J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80P

filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed the order on19.03.2024 ... learned CCIT, Hyderabad u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act on 01.07.2024. The learned CCIT, Hyderabad passed the order on 25.09.2024 by condoning the delay in filing the return of income. At that period of time,the CEO Sri A. Jagadeeswara Rao was not well again. As such, the appeal

Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural Co-Op Society Ltd, East Godavari vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

ITA 438/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: 29.03.2022 After Obtaining Prior Approval From The Pcit, Visakhapatnam 1. In Response, Assessee Submitted Reply Through E-Mail On 24.03.2022 Stating That Assessee Is Eligible For Deduction Under Section 80P Of The Act & Therefore Issuance Of Notice Under Section 148A(A) Of The Act Is Not Warranted. Ld. Ao Did Not Accept The Reply Of The Assessee & Decided That It Is A Fit Case Of Issue Of Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act For The A.Y. 2018-19 & Thereafter Passed Order Under Section 148A(D) Of The Act On 30.03.2022.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 80P

I.T.A.Nos.437 & 438/VIZ/2024 Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural Co-op Credit Society Ltd., -- Delhi [hereinafter in short "Ld.CIT(A)"] vide respective DIN

Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, East Godavari vs. Income-Tax Officer-Ward-1, Kakinada

ITA 437/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.437 & 438/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21) Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Income Tax Office Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Deepthi Towers 5-28/1, Pandalapaka Main Road, Kakinada – 533001 Biccavole Mandal – 533345 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabap2382G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 80P

filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: Page No. 11 I.T.A.Nos.437 & 438/VIZ/2024 Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural Co-op Credit ... reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 26 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 26 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 24. Brief facts

Vengola Service Co Op Bank Ltd, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Ward 2, Aluva

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

ITA 565/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vengola Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 13/621 Ab, Kunnathunadu Vengola P.O., Ernakulam 683556 [Pan: Aaaav1709N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Aluva Appellant By: Shri Lokanathan R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 270ASection 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 91 days. The assessee filed a petition along with an affidavit praying for condonation of delay on the ground that the order passed by the CIT(A) was not served physically but through e-mail which was not received ... material on record to disbelieve the averments made in the affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the present appeal, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal solely on the reason that the return of income

Shiv Vegpro Private Limited, Kota vs. PCIT-Udaipur, Udaipur

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, (Adv.) &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, (CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

that there was delay of 96 days in filling the present appeal by the assessee. In support, the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay praying therein as under:- "The Humble - Assessee most respectfully begs to submit as under: 1. That in the aforesaid matter, the Id. PCIT, Udaipur ... Land & Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has advocated for a very liberal approach while considering a case for condonation of delay. The following observations of the Hon'ble Court are notable: "The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section