← 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

Meera Devi, Patna vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Patna

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

ITA 447/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 2(47)Section 250Section 54F

447/PAT/2024 Meera Devi, AY : 2014-15 3. This appeal of the assessee is time barred by 56 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the averments made in the application and shortness of delay, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned

Kumar Saurav, Patna vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Patna

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

ITA 446/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 2(24)Section 250Section 54F

446/PAT/2024 Kumar Saurav, AY : 2014-15 3. This appeal of the assessee is time barred by 45 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the averments made in the application and shortness of delay, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned

Rajkumar Asnani, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 1442/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271FSection 44A

same was barred by limitation, and the 2 Sh. Rajkumar Asnani vs. ITO appellant had failed to proof any sufficient cause for condonation of delay, in filing the same. 2. Appeal before Learned CIT(A) was filed, while challenging assessment order dated 27.03.2022, passed by the Assessing Officer whereby total ... Learned CIT(A) was dismissed being barred by limitation. There too, an application was filed by the assessee before Learned CIT(A) seeking condonation of delay of 195 days, as the assessment order was passed on 27.03.2022, but the same came to be challenged by way of appeal only

Jatinder Nath, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Ludhiana

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 729/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 5Section 68

that grievance of the assessee revolves around two folds. The first fold of grievance is that ld. CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay of 383 days and dismissing the appeal being time barred. In the second fold, the grievance of the assessee is that ... best judgement. When assessee came to know about this assessment order, he filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The case of the assessee before the CIT(A) was that no notice was served upon him nor any assessment order

Jatinder Nath, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Ludhiana, Rishi Nagar

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 728/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 5Section 68

that grievance of the assessee revolves around two folds. The first fold of grievance is that ld. CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay of 383 days and dismissing the appeal being time barred. In the second fold, the grievance of the assessee is that ... best judgement. When assessee came to know about this assessment order, he filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The case of the assessee before the CIT(A) was that no notice was served upon him nor any assessment order

Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Latur vs. ACIT (Exmp.) Circle, Aurangabad

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

ITA 951/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56Section 57

Exemption), Pune vide order dated 05.08.2022 in response to the assessee’s application filed on 23.03.2022 for condonation of delay. He submitted that the return filed by the assessee in Form-5 is not a valid return and therefore the assessee is not entitled to claim exemption under such invalid

Ashok Bhimraj Bhange, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2488/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2488/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Ashok Bhimraj Bhange, Vs Ito, Ward-1, At Post Kolhar Bk, Tal. Rahata, Ahmednagar Dist. Ahmednagar-413716 Pan-Bcrpb2153D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prasad Bhandari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vishal A Makawane
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

prevailing circumstances of the case and in Law. the Resp. ADDL/JCIT (A)-1 CHANDIGARH erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay in filing appeal inspite of genuine reasons. Therefore, the impugned order may please be set aside. 2. Without prejudice to the above, following grounds may please ... indicates that since the appeal filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) was delayed by 1161, and even though the application for condonation of delay was filed but Ld. CIT(A) did not condone it and dismissed the appeal in “Limine”. 5. We note that the assessee is residing

Naim Yusuf Kureshi, Satara vs. ITO, Ward-3, Satara

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

ITA 2226/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2226/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Naim Yusuf Kureshi, Ito Ward-3, Satara Kalekar Colony, Subhashnagar, Koregaon, Vs. Tal-Koregaon, Dist-Satara- 415501 Pan-Etupk6994J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.F. MominFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Sathe, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 220Section 250Section 271Section 69Section 69A

indicates that since the appeal filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) was delayed by 236, and even though the application for condonation of delay was filed but Ld. CIT(A) did not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in “Limine”. 5. We observe that the assessee ... therefore taking a liberal approach and being fair to both the parties and in the interest of justice deem it proper to condone the delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue raised on merits to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication

Shreeji Foods Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 728/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Shreeji Foods Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aalcs2695H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2025 15.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

assesse u/s 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 4. The learned CIT (A) has erred in not considering the request of condonation of delay filed by the assessee, despite a valid reason given for the delay.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee being a company ... explain the late filing of appeal which could make it eligible for the condonation of the delay. In granting the indulgence and condoning the delay, it must be proved beyond the shadow of doubt that the assessee was diligent and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever. The appellant has failed

A1 - Animals Come First, Kolkata vs. I.T.O. (Exemption), Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1494/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(d)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in confirming action of CPC Bengaluru only the ground of the appeal of the Appellant being time barred without condoning the delay has caused grave injustice to the Appellant and therefore the intimation of Assessment under section 143(1) of the Income ... while the extended due date for filing the same was 31.10.2019. Although Circular no. 16/2024 dated 18.11.2024 permitted the Ld. CIT (Exemption) to condone the delay but the same could be done for three years and, therefore, fresh application could not be filed. The Ld. AR requested that the matter

DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Microland Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1154/BANG/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jan 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2023-24 Microland Limited 1B, Ecospace, 2Nd Floor Outer Ring Road Dcit Bellandur Circle-4(1)(1) Vs. Bellandur So Bangalore Bangalore Karnataka 560 103

For Appellant: Sri B.K. Manjunath, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80J

filing the appeal before this Tribunal by the revenue. The ld. D.R. for the revenue has drawn our attention on the application for condonation of delay filed by the ld. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore, which is reproduced below for ease of reference & convenience:- CO 28/Bang/2024 Microland Limited, Bangalore ... 28/Bang/2024 Microland Limited, Bangalore Page 4 of 9 that it is a case of short delay of just 1 day, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to decide the matter in the interest of justice. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company engaged

Dinesh Ghanshyam Jani, Bora Bazar Street Fort vs. ACIT -4 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5080/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Shri Girish Agrawal, A.M. A.Y.2012-13 Dinesh Ghanshyam Jani, Acit-4(3)(1), 19/21, 4Th Floor, Bora Bazar, Mumbai Street Fort, Mumbai Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Acnpj 3582D Assessee By Shri Sharwan Kumar Jha, Revenue By Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing 09.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.01.2025

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

appeal. An application along with affidavit has been filed AY 2012-13 Dinesh Ghanshyam Jani Vs. ACIT, Mumbai by the assessee, seeking condonation of delay. It is the say of the assessee that the order passed by learned First Appellate Authority was not received through any mode of communication ... considered rival submissions, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was due to sufficient cause. Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The dispute in the present appeal is addition of an amount of Rs.41,81,79,265/- under

Vijaykumar Jagannath Aggarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2171/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhatt,ARFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Accordingly, the appeal filed was treated as non est. However, appellant was given the liberty to file appeal again with a request for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal was treated as dismissed for statistical purposes. Apparently, the ld CIT(A) has misunderstood the whole issue as it appears that

Dhrubgama Prathmik Krishi Sakh Society Limited, Samastipur vs. ITO, Ward- 3(3), Samastipur

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

ITA 347/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the CIT (A) NFAC on 03.12.2019 The date of hearing fixed by the CIT (A) NFAC on 05.01.2021, 05.08.2022, 09.11.2022 and 18.01.2023. The applicant could not know the date of hearing as it was provided on e-mail and mob no. The mail id and Mob No. mentioned in application form -35 and in IT portal does not belongs to any member or chairman of the society. The mail id and Mob No. given in e-filing portal and in form -35 is Unidentical and seems that it was the any staff member of our then tax c

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

Order U/s -250 of the Act has already been passed on 30.01.2023. Under the above facts the petitioner is filing this petition for condonation of delay in filing Appeal before ITAT in Form-36 provided the assessee is prevented by reasonable cause. Since the petitioner is prevented by sufficient

Om Prakash, Gaya vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-1, Gaya

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 31/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.31/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Om Prakash…………………….. ………...…..…………………....Appellant G. B. Road, Murarpur, Gaya – 823001. [Pan: Aocpp7508Q] Vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-1, Gaya………………….............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 14, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.05.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 215 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & The Delay Was Not Intentional.. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Retail Businesses & Service Sector & Filed Return Of Income On 31.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring A Total Income Of

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 270A

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 215 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the application, we find reasonable cause which was beyond the control of the assessee and the delay ... intentional.. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeal and adjudicate the appeal on merits of the case. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in retail businesses and service sector and filed return of income on 31.03.2018 for the assessment year

Umia Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 6295/MUM/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Cit, (Exemptions) Umia Charitable Trust Mumbai – 301, Goyal Shopping Centre, S.V. Road, Borivali(W), Mumbai – 400092. Pan/Gir No. Aabtu0069N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. R.C. Makadia, Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13.01.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Trust Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 21.09.2024, Rejection Of Application 10Ab U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai (‘Ld. Cit(E)’), For The Assessment Year 2024-25. 2. At The Very Outset, We Noticed That There Is A Delay In Filing The Present Appeal & In This Regard Ld.Ar While

Section 12Section 12A(1)(ac)

filing the present appeal and in this regard Ld.AR while 2 drawing our attention to the contents of the application for seeking condonation of delay, submitted that the notice issued by the department went to spam folder and thus assessee could not come to know about the passing ... assesses own negligent conduct for not pursuing the proceedings diligently before the Ld CIT (E) and there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Therefore, requests for dismissal of application for seeking condonation of delay. 4. After having heard counsels for both the parties on the application for seeking

Bharat Vanmalibhai Modiya, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-31(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6005/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

6001/Mum/2024, (A.Y 2010-11) 2. There is a delay in filing the appeal, and in this regard, the assessee has requested for the condonation of delay and the reasons given are supported by an affidavit. 3. After having heard the counsels for both the parties and going through the contentions ... application seeking for condonation of delay and also taking into consideration the principles as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC) wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities

Bharat Vanmalibhai Modiya, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6001/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

6001/Mum/2024, (A.Y 2010-11) 2. There is a delay in filing the appeal, and in this regard, the assessee has requested for the condonation of delay and the reasons given are supported by an affidavit. 3. After having heard the counsels for both the parties and going through the contentions ... application seeking for condonation of delay and also taking into consideration the principles as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC) wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi, I.P.Estate vs. Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services(India) Pvt. Ltd., Lajpat Nagar

ITA 3158/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

5417/Del/2017 along with other cases considered and found to be justified. The ld. Counsel for the assessee did not oppose the condonation of delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay in the appeals of the Revenue and proceed to adjudicate the same. 3. Both the contesting parties have informed that

Amit Kumar Gupta, Ramanujganj, Balrampur vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Korba

ITA 405/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 404 & 405/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2011-12 Amit Kumar Gupta House No.7, Shetpara, P.O. Ramanujganj, Dist. Balrampur-497 220 (C.G.) Pan: Axbpg1069P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

that the captioned appeal involve a delay of 24 days. On a perusal of the records, it transpires that considering the application for condonation of delay a/w. affidavit, dated 17.09.2024, the said delay had been condoned vide order sheet entry dated 13.12.2024. 4. Succinctly stated, the A.O based on information