← 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

Patan Education Society, Satara vs. ITO Exemption 1, Pune

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

ITA 705/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.705/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Patan Education Society, Vs. Ito (Exemption)-1, Shikka Mension, Patan S.O., Pune. Patan, Satara- 415206. Pan : Aaatp8412H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prateek Jha & Shri Prayag Jha Revenue By : Shri Vinod Pawar Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.01.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Visakhapatnam [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Order Under Section 143(1) Without Appreciating That The Adjustment Made Was Beyond The Purview Of The Provisions Of Section 143(1).

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 11Section 11(2)(c)Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

Bahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal Malwasie Trust, [1992] 195 ITR 825 (Calcutta) & also furnished copy of CBDT Circular with regard to condonation of delay. 8. Ld. AR fairly conceded before the bench that for assessment year 2018-19 similar addition was made by CPC by denying the deduction ... record including the paper book, copy of Form 10B audit report, copy of case laws, copy of circular issued by CBDT for condonation of delay and copy of decision already passed by this Tribunal in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2018-19 wherein the Tribunal dismissed

Dinesh Kumar, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 613/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2021-22
For Appellant: None
Section 144Section 153CSection 250(6)Section 69A

that there is a delay of 36 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for such delay. On perusal of the condonation petition, we find that the delay is only minor in nature ... reasons stated therein constitute sufficient cause. There is also no objection from the Revenue to the condonation of delay. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

Jithender Reddy Polu, Nalgonda vs. ITO, Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1493/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1493/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jithender Reddy Polu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nalgonda. Ward-1, Pan:Ahlpp6612R Suryapet. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Nagaraju, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 04/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 08/01/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 05/12/2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nagaraju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. AR
Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

Elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay, the Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the application filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay, dated 24/11/2025 accompanied with his “affidavit” of even date. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had neither received the notices intimating the fixation ... Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering

Babugari Kareem Basha, Kurnool vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nandyal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1447/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: : Shri Karthik Manickam, SR-DR

days. Along with the memorandum of appeal, the assessee has Page 1 of 7 Babugari Kareem Basha filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 30.10.2025, 16.12.2025 and again on 27.01.2026. On all these dates, there was no appearance ... travel, which resulted in delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Per contra, the Ld. DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay. The Ld. DR submitted that the conduct of the assessee throughout the proceedings shows continuous negligence and non-compliance. It was submitted that the assessee

Dd 587 A, Vellodu Paccs, Dindigul vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dindigul

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3282/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3282/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr.K. Balasubramanian, C.A *+For Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl. CIT
Section 148Section 250Section 69A

There was a delay of 181 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is a delay ... days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit along with a petition for condoning the delay stating that the appellate order not received by the assessee only upon receipt of the officer for recovery proceedings, the assessee came to know of the appeal being disposed

V Gayathri, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Krishnagiri

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1871/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Jecintha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

prayed that the delay be condoned and the appeal be taken up on merits. Per contra, the Ld.DR opposed the petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee has not made out a case for condoning the delay and that the appeal may be dismissed in limine ... satisfied that the assessee had sufficient cause in not presenting the appeal within the period of limitation specified under the Act. We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing the appeal and now proceed to hear the case on merits. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

Muniyappa Nagaraj, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer. Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1294/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Balaram R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

delay of 577 days be condoned in the interest of justice and equity. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that the delay of 577 days was excessive. He contended that the assessee had not shown sufficient cause for such a long ... been shown for the delay. In the interest of substantial justice and to afford the assessee an opportunity of being heard, we condone the delay of 577 days and admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits. 6. The issue raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT-A erred

Labdhi Logical Financial Solutions LLP, Dombivalt East, Thane vs. ITO 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7635/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarlabdhi Logical Financial Ito-3(2), Solutions Llp 2Nd Floor, Rani B-22, Gao Devi Prasad, Vs. Mansion, Murbad Domvivali East, Thane, Road, Kalyan, Maharashtra-421 201 Maharashtra- 421 301 Pan/Gir No. Aaefl7209G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deepak Shah, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 04.02.2026

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(5)Section 68Section 69C

confirming 2 Labdhi Logical Financial Solutions LLP the reassessment framed under section 147 read with section 144 read with section144B of the Act. Condonation of Delay 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 21 days( as per affidavit 20 days) in filing the present appeal ... assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit of Shri Pravin Jain, partner of the assessee LLP. 3. We have carefully considered the contents of the affidavit and the material placed on record. In the affidavit, the deponent has stated that the impugned order

ACIT, Circle-1 Kalyan, Kalyan vs. F T Textiles Private Limited, Bhiwandi

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

ITA 6238/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)

adjustments were made by the CPC. Immediately, an appeal was filed before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) has taken up the appeal, condoned the delay and went on to adjudicate the issues therein. The appellant has stated before the Ld.CIT(A) that there was certain technical glitches ... should be given an opportunity to counter the same. In FT Textiles Pvt.Ltd. this particular case, the Ld.CIT(A) took up the case, condoned the delay and also gave relief to the appellant on merits also without giving an opportunity to the department in terms of provisions of Rule

Farook Shaikh, North Goa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), North Goa

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

ITA 406/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos. 406/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2016-17) Farook Shaikh, National Faceless Vs H.No.961, Assessment Centre, . Near Syndicate Bank, New Delhi-110003. Sanquelim, North Goa-403505, Goa. Pan.No.Fstps6016N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Sanket Bakshi.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2026 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec147 R,W,S144 & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) In Not Condoning The Delay In Filling The Appeal & Sustaining The Addition Of Unexplained Investment U/Sec69 Of The Act By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is In Employment Outside India & Has Not Filed The Return Of Income. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Based On The Information From Ddit(Inv) Bangalore In Respect Of Search

Section 144Section 69

U/sec 250 of the Act. The assesse has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filling the appeal and sustaining the addition of unexplained investment u/sec69 of the Act by the Assessing Officer. 2. The brief facts ... there could be various reasons for no proper compliance. Whereas the affidavit and application U/sec 249(3) of the Act for condonation of delay of in filling the appeal was not filed before the CIT(A) by the assessee. The Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee to buy peace with

M/S Eklavya Estate Pvt.Ltd., Ranchi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ranchi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Eklavya Estate Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., H-95, Harmu Housing Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aabce 5815 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133ASection 270ASection 274

hearing." 2. There is a delay of 92 days in filing of this appeal for which the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay mentioning the fact that since beginning of the proceedings the assessee had always been misrepresented M/s Eklavya Estate P Ltd. Vs DCIT with the facts

Arup Bakshi, Bongaigaon vs. ITO, Ward -1, Bongaigaon

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

ITA 293/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 119 days. The assessee has filed a petition along with an affidavit for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the assessee is a businessman and residing in the state of Assam in Bongaigaon town and for income tax matters ... file the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT only after being properly advised by a professional available in Guwahati. The assessee requested to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merit. After perusing the application, we are ITA No.: 293/GTY/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Arup Bakshi. satisfied

Newdream Welfare Foundation, Cuttack vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 711/CTK/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

belatedly by 04 days and ITA No.711/CTK/2025 is filed belatedly by 08 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with affidavit stating sufficient reasons for delay. Ld. CIT-DR also did not object to condone the delay. Considering the prayer ... supported with affidavit, we are of the view that the assessee has sufficient reasons for delay in filing the present appeals. Accordingly, we condone the delay are admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee had applied in Form 10AB seeking registration u/s.12AB

Newdream Welfare Foundation, Cuttack vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 701/CTK/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: rejecting an application for registration on account of delay, it would be worthwhile to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal in respect of grant of registration u/s.12AB of the Act along with approval u/s.80G of the Act is restored to the file of Id. CIT(E) for deciding afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to explain the delay in filing the application for regular registration u/s.12AB of t

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

belatedly by 04 days and ITA No.711/CTK/2025 is filed belatedly by 08 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with affidavit stating sufficient reasons for delay. Ld. CIT-DR also did not object to condone the delay. Considering the prayer ... supported with affidavit, we are of the view that the assessee has sufficient reasons for delay in filing the present appeals. Accordingly, we condone the delay are admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee had applied in Form 10AB seeking registration u/s.12AB

Fdcm Karmachari Sahaka, Chandrapur vs. ITO Ward-2, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 313/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed Lakkadsha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Year 2018-19. (A.Y.) 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 1291 days in filing the instant appeal. Application for condonation of delay along with affidavit has been filed and placed on record. 2 ITA.No.313/NAG/2025 (FDCM Karmachari Sahaka) Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed for condonation ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), I hereby condone the delay of 1291 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee stated that even

Barhattakar Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Raipur, Raipur vs. ITO-2, Itarsi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose, subject

ITA 583/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147

filing present appeal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of case and the averments made by appellant in the application/affidavit for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. In view of the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme ... wherein it has been held that the “technical considerations” should not prevail over the cause of “substantial justice”, we deem it fit to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 8 days in filing appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken for hearing. 3. Ld. AR for assessee submits

Ramrati Sahu, Bhopal vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 34/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 250Section 253(5)Section 263

registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 129 days and therefore time-barred. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference: Page 2 of 7 Ramrati Sahu ITA No. 34/Ind/2025 - AY 2014-15 BEFORE ... INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE Appellant : Ram Rati Sahu 74, Hanumanganj Market, Bhopal PAN : ATNPS4535N Assessment Year : 2014-15 APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY The appellant most respectfully submits this application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal, against the appellate order u/s 250 dated 27/06/2024

Shri Rajbirinder Singh Chahal, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(5), Chandigarh

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

ITA 1157/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1157/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Rajbirinder Singh Chahal, The Ito, C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Vs Ward 5(5), # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aeepc0143E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 249Section 251(1)(a)Section 253Section 3Section 5

Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 3. The Registry has pointed out that appeal is time barred by 40 days. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay and annexed an affidavit alongwith the application. According to the assessee, he only came to know about the impugned ex-parte order ... 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

Mandi Saksharta Evum Janvikas Samiti, Mandi vs. Addl. CIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 714/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.714/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mandi Saksharta Evum Janvikas Samiti Addl. Cit बनाम/ Saksharta Bhawan Mandi (T), Mandi H.O. Cpc, Bengaluru Vs. Himachal Pradesh India – 175001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaajm-0214-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Vigyan Prakash Arora (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) - Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018- 19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 13-02-2024 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) On 04-03-2020. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 66 Days In The Appeal. Considering The Background Of The Assessee, The Delay Is Condoned. Having Heard Rival Submissions, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. Vigyan Prakash Arora (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Sr. DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)

assessee was to file revised return by resorting to the provisions of Sec.119(2)(b) by making an application to the Board. The condonation of delay was not in the domain of first appellate authority. Accordingly, the relief as claimed by the assessee was not allowed. Aggrieved, the assessee

Jan Sahyog Vikas Trust, Banaskantha vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1017/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026

Bench: us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: 1. Learned CIT(E) erred in law and facts by making the order by rejecting the application filed in form 10AB for registration u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the IT act for not producing documents required by the authority.

For Appellant: Ms. Urjita Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-D.R
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

produce against the notice issued by the authority and not submitted appeal on time against rejection order, hence we will require permission for condonation of delay in filing appeal. Appellant craves to add, alter or delete any ground either before or 3. in the course hearing of the appeal