← 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

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

ITA 404/RPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

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

Ajit Kumar Jha, Patna vs. Ac, Circle-6, Patna

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

ITA 368/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 250

this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of the said delay as under: “1. That this is an application for condonation of delay in the filing of the present appeal. 2. That the appellant states that the order of assessment was passed by the Commissioner of Income ... approached its counsel for seeking remedies as provided under the law. The said counsel advised filing of appeal along with a petition for condonation of delay. 5. That the appellant states that apart from the fact that it did not received any notice in the faceless proceeding of appeal

Raj Kishor Prasad, Nalanda vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 344/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.344/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Raj Kishor Prasad………….. ………...…..…………………....Appellant Station Road, Harnaut, Nalanda, Bihar – 803110. [Pan: Bpkpp0668B] Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ajay Kr. Rastogi, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 13, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.01.2024 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 16 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause Therein. 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 An Information Was Received From The Insight Portal Which Suggested That The Income Chargeable To Tax Has Escaped Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee For The Assessment

Section 139Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 68

outset, the Registry has informed that there is a delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the application, we find reasonable cause therein. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeal

Dharmendra Kumar, Patna vs. ITO Ward 4 (2), Patna

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 61/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.61/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dharmendra Kumar……….. ………...…..…………………....Appellant Panchuchak Ramnagar Colony, Patna, Bihar – 801503. [Pan: Bftpk2616B] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(2), Patna………………….............................…..…..... 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 13, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.07.2022 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. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Based On An Information Obtained From Aims Database By Using Itba Modules, The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee Had Deposited Rs.39,23,000/- In Various Bank Accounts During The Period Of Demonetisation. As The Assessee Did Not File A Return Of Income & The Source Of The Said Deposits Were Remained Unexplained & Unaccounted For During The Relevant Assessment Year, The Assessing Officer Believed That Income Chargeable To Tax Had Escaped Assessment Within The Meaning Of Section 147 Of The Act. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Issued Notices U/S 142(1) Along With 148 Of The Act To The Assessee But There Was No Response From The

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

anyone turned up nor any representation has been given. We additionally find that the assessee has also failed to file any application for condonation of delay of 149 days in filing the present appeal explaining such delay before us. In this respect, we emphasise that procedural compliance like filing ... application for condonation of delay 2 I.T.A. No.61/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dharmendra Kumar is essential for maintaining of an appeal. In the absence of any application of condonation of such delay and also on the ground of any representation before us on the part of the assessee, we dismiss

Saroj Tilakraj Juneja, Surat vs. DCIT Circle-1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1048/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1048/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Saroj Tilakraj Juneja, Vs. The Dcit, 3, Subhas Nagar Society, Ghod Dod Road, Circle - 1(1)(1), Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abbpj5634M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/01/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)Section 69

appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in dismissing the appeal on issue of non-condonation of delay in filing the appeal for 71 days though delay was for reasonable cause. 2. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the additions ... filing return of income. Therefore, delay of 5 months has occurred in filing the appeal before ITAT. Hence, the ld. AR requested to condone the delay in filing before ITAT. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submitted that the reasons given

Vishwakarma Shram Seva Nyash, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Kailash Heights

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

ITA 686/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jan 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Rajvanshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 12ZSection 5Section 80G

days in filing both the appeals by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an applications for condonation of delay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit also :- “With reference to the above subject, we want to state that ... assessee trust encountered unexpected emergencies that demanded her immediate attention and involvement. So there is delay in filing appeal. Further, requesting the condonation of delay, we are relying on the following decisions:- 1. Your honour, it has been held by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai in a similar case

Vishwakarma Shram Seva Nyash, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Kailash Height

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

ITA 685/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jan 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Rajvanshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 12ZSection 5Section 80G

days in filing both the appeals by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an applications for condonation of delay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit also :- “With reference to the above subject, we want to state that ... assessee trust encountered unexpected emergencies that demanded her immediate attention and involvement. So there is delay in filing appeal. Further, requesting the condonation of delay, we are relying on the following decisions:- 1. Your honour, it has been held by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai in a similar case

Farid Educational Social Welfare and Charitable Society, New Shastri Nagar vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 608/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: This Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gera, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

been submitted, the same got uploaded on 10.03.2023. 6.1.5 The appellant on late uploading of audit report has requested this office to condone the delay In this regard, it is to submit that this office is not empowered for condonation of such delay in filing Audit report. The appellant ... file application for condonation of delay before concerned CIT(Exemption) and get the delay condoned. In absence of condonation of delay order from CIT(Exemption), these grounds of the appellant fails. Addition made by CPC is hereby upheld. 6.2 Ground No. 5 & 6 are general in nature and hence Dismissed

Ithaca Estates Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-(3)(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 1014/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sri Ganesh Raj, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, D.R
Section 250(6)

delay of 266 days in this appeal for which the ld. Counsel of the assessee has relied upon the application for condonation of delay duly supported with an affidavit. 3. Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below and opposed the application for condonation of delay. 4. Certain ... dates, which are mentioned in the affidavit and are relevant for deciding the condonation of delay are as under: Ithaca Estates Private Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 3 4.1 Perusal of the above sequence of events would show that on 20.7.2020, NCLT has appointed Mrs. R.B. as IRP Professional

Rahul S Dodal, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5987/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. D.R
Section 250

appeal file, it appears that this appeal is also time barred by 508 days, however, the Assessee did not file any application for condonation of delay. Considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed in limine, however, with liberty to the Assessee to seek ... recall of this order by establishing the reason for non-appearance, as well as by filing relevant application for condonation of delay. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.01.2025. (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) JUDICIAL MEMBER * Kishore

Mangala Suresh Sonawane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5348/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 248Section 249Section 250Section 51

found that the appeal has been filed beyond the time limit permitted u/s.249 of the act without any sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 2. It is brought to our notice that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay as mentioned in form no. 35 and the impugned order ... came to know about this after her daughter in law received call regarding outstanding demand. Assessee requests your honor to condone the delay in filing of appeal" Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and an opportunity of hearing need to be granted

Maneckji Rustomji Patel Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax CPC, Bangaluru, Mumbai

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

ITA 5290/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Maneckji Rustomji Patel Trust, Income Tax Cpc, Bangaluru, 5, 2Nd Floor, Oval View, 150 M. Karve Dy. Director Of Income-Tax Ward Vs. Road, Churchgate 25(2)(1), Mumbai-400020. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra East. Pan No. Aadtm 1078 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Parikh
Section 143(1)Section 154

held that Kathpaliya v. Lakhmir Singh AIR 1984 SC 1744 Kathpaliya v. Lakhmir Singh AIR 1984 SC 1744 refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage ... justice, thus it would be a ground to condoning the delay. The Hon’ble thus it would be a ground to condoning the delay. The Hon’ble thus it would be a ground to condoning the delay. The Hon’ble court in the case of Ornate Traders

Striton Properties Private Limited (Erstwhile Mars Hotels and Resorts Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3945/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. A/R
Section 32

Both these appeals are barred by limitation by 40 days. We have considered the request for condonation of delay in filing of the appeals, which is supported by an affidavit of the Chartered Accountant, who was the cause for the delay in filing of the appeals. We are convinced that

Striton Properties Private Limited (Erstwhile Mars Hotel and Resorts Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3944/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. A/R
Section 32

Both these appeals are barred by limitation by 40 days. We have considered the request for condonation of delay in filing of the appeals, which is supported by an affidavit of the Chartered Accountant, who was the cause for the delay in filing of the appeals. We are convinced that

Siddharth Suryakant Deshmukh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3318/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish A. ThakurdesaiFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

Income Tax matters. iii. Subsequently Mr.Dharne collected Ex-parte orders and filed appeal before your good self on 01/05/2019 with request to condone the delay in fling appeal. Your appellant submits the following facts. 1. Your appellant is an individual and was under impression that my income is below taxable ... between 01/08/2018 and 06/12/2018. While condoning delay in filing appeal, the CIT(A) had recorded the reasons given by the Assessee for seeking condonation of delay in paragraph 1 of the order impugned wherein it was stated that the mother of the Assessee had passed away in August

Bssbuildcon P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 6409/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.6409/िद"ी/2018 (िन.व. 2013-14) Bss Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., M-133, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, New Delhi 110048 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaccb-6435-F बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), R. No. 379, C.R Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent I.P Estate, New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Devirat Tiwari, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 13/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 17.08.2018, For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Counsel For The Assessee Stated At Bar That The Assessee Has Opted To Settle The Issue In Appeal Under Vsvs 2024. He Placed On Record Copy Of Form No. 1 Filed Under The Scheme & Submitted That Form No. 2 From The Department Is Awaited. He Prayed For Withdrawing The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Devirat Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

appeal in the event assessee’s declaration made under VSVS is not accepted, the Registry shall not insist for filing of application for condonation of delay, if the Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order is filed beyond time on account of delay in communication of outcome under VSVS

Harish Pandey, Raipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

ITA 503/RPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 503/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

assesse has filed his return of income before and after these accounting period i.e. 2017-18 assessment year 2018-19. 9. Please approve condonation of delay to be file our return of income of said assessment year. 8. On being confronted about the failure of assessee before both the revenue

DCIT(Exemption) Circle, Patna vs. M/S Deo Mangal Memorial Trust, Patna

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 67/PAT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 11(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 253(2)

delay in filing of appeals which has been requested to be condoned by the Revenue. For the sake of convenience, the application for condonation of delay for AY 2013- 14 is extracted as under: “With reference to the subject it is to convey that the Order u/s 250 for A.Yrs ... India and the Government of Bihar, it was not possible to file the petition in due time. Therefore, it is requested to kindly condone the delay in filling appeal and accept the appeal u/s 253(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the said case.” It is seen that

DCIT(Exemption) Circle, Patna vs. M/S Deo Mangal Memorial Trust, Patna

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 66/PAT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 11(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 253(2)

delay in filing of appeals which has been requested to be condoned by the Revenue. For the sake of convenience, the application for condonation of delay for AY 2013- 14 is extracted as under: “With reference to the subject it is to convey that the Order u/s 250 for A.Yrs ... India and the Government of Bihar, it was not possible to file the petition in due time. Therefore, it is requested to kindly condone the delay in filling appeal and accept the appeal u/s 253(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the said case.” It is seen that

DCIT(Exemption) Circle, Patna vs. M/S Deo Mangal Memorial Trust, Patna

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 65/PAT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 11(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 253(2)

delay in filing of appeals which has been requested to be condoned by the Revenue. For the sake of convenience, the application for condonation of delay for AY 2013- 14 is extracted as under: “With reference to the subject it is to convey that the Order u/s 250 for A.Yrs ... India and the Government of Bihar, it was not possible to file the petition in due time. Therefore, it is requested to kindly condone the delay in filling appeal and accept the appeal u/s 253(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the said case.” It is seen that