“condonation of delay”

Pravinbhai Vallabhbhai Kakadiya-HUF, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(3), Surat

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.907/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Pravinbhai Vallabhbhai Kakadiya – Huf, Vs. The Ito, M-43, Ratnaprabha Co-Op. Housing Ward – 2(3)(3), Society, Bharthana, Vesu, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aanhp0960R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2025

preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Hence, we condone the delay of 131 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 6. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed return of income ... assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted the affidavit for condonation of delay and requested that in the interest of justice, another opportunity may be granted to assessee to plead his case before the AO because the orders of lower authorities

Balvant Nandlal Talaviya, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward-1, Navsari

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.530 & 531/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Balvant Nandlal Talaviya, Vs. The Ito, B-2/45, Sundaram Park Society, Hansot Ward – 1, Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch - 393001 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aedpt4075K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2025

consultant with respect to the procedure and formalities of filing appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay would constitute “sufficient cause” for the delay in filing the appeal. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. ITA No. 530/SRT/2024

Balvant Nandlal Talaviya, Bharuch vs. ITO Ward-1, Navsari

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.530 & 531/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Balvant Nandlal Talaviya, Vs. The Ito, B-2/45, Sundaram Park Society, Hansot Ward – 1, Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch - 393001 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aedpt4075K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2025

consultant with respect to the procedure and formalities of filing appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay would constitute “sufficient cause” for the delay in filing the appeal. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. ITA No. 530/SRT/2024

Ishvarbhai Lallubhai Patel, Surat vs. Assessment Unit NFAC, Delhi

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1046/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Ishvarbhai Lallubhai Patel, Vs. The Assessment Unit, House No.3, Navapara Village Kosad, Nfac, Surat - 394107 Delhi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Caepp6924J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Dinesh Ramani, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2025

assessee are as under: “(1) The C.I.T(A) erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in rejecting condonation of delay by not allowing opportunity of personal hearing. (2) The C.I.T(A) has violated principal of natural justice in rejection of appeal for condonation of delay

Kakumanu Naveen Kumar, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Vijayawada

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.469 & 470/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kakumanu Naveen Kumar V. Ito – Ward – 2(1) Central Revenue Building Flat No. 201, Venkata Raghava Residency Radio Colony, Beside Med Plus Medical Shop M.G. Road, Vijayawada Vijayawada – 520008 Andhra Pradesh - 520002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Cmspk2757G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Authorised Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.AR”], inviting our attention to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 85 days & 23 days in filing the appeals before First Appellate Authority stating that assessee was not able to establish “sufficient cause ... merits of the case.Further, Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not appreciate the submissions properly and without giving any reasons for not condoning the delay and except stating that assessee was not able to establish “sufficient cause” for delay in filing appeal, rejected the condonation petition. Ld.AR submitted that

Kakumanu Naveen Kumar, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Vijayawada

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.469 & 470/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kakumanu Naveen Kumar V. Ito – Ward – 2(1) Central Revenue Building Flat No. 201, Venkata Raghava Residency Radio Colony, Beside Med Plus Medical Shop M.G. Road, Vijayawada Vijayawada – 520008 Andhra Pradesh - 520002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Cmspk2757G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Authorised Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.AR”], inviting our attention to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 85 days & 23 days in filing the appeals before First Appellate Authority stating that assessee was not able to establish “sufficient cause ... merits of the case.Further, Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not appreciate the submissions properly and without giving any reasons for not condoning the delay and except stating that assessee was not able to establish “sufficient cause” for delay in filing appeal, rejected the condonation petition. Ld.AR submitted that

Forest Guardian Charitable Trust, Satna vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2023-24 Forest Guardian Commissioner Of Income- Charitable Trust, Tax (Exemption), Ward No. 01, Bhopal Haryana Dall Mill बनाम/ Compound, Vs. Kamta Tola, Satna (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaatf9057G Assessee By Shri Regan Kapoor, Ca Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2025

submitted that the assessee is a charitable trust and Shri Vinay Goel, the office bearer/authorized representative of assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp. On perusal of the application/affidavit, we observe that the averments therein state that after receiving impugned order

Jagvir Singh Kuntal, Mathura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(2), Mathura

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Counsel for the assessee prayed that the delay of three days be condoned. Ld. Sr. DR has no serious objection to the condonation of delay. After considering the contentions of both the parties, I am of the view that the delay of 3 days needs to be condoned ... beyond the time prescribed. The assessee is not likely to gain by filing this appeal belatedly with ITAT by 3 days. I, therefore, condone the delay of 3 days in filing of this appeal belatedly by the assessee beyond the time prescribed u/s. 253(3) of the Act. Reliance

Anand Basantani, Mandla vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandla

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12 Anand Basantani, Mandla V. Income Tax Officer, C/O Gurukripa Rice Industries, Mandla Padav Road, Mp-481661. Aayakar Bhawan, Mandla, Mp-481661. Pan:Arqps8543G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri H. S. Modh, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09 01 2025 O R D E R

made in the application. The delay in filing was not deliberate but due to reasonable cause he Page 2 of 4 prayed for condonation of delay. The relevant contents of the application are reproduced as under:- “1. That I had Filled an Appeal Before the CIT (A) on Dated

Maharishi Dayanand Education Society, Punjab vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions )Chandigarh, Chandigarh

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

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.” 3. Condonation of delay:- It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal has been belatedly filed before the Tribunal which is delayed by 1294 days ... assessee has filed an application requesting for condonation of delay, the relevant portion of which are explained as follows: “1. The order was passed by the CIT (Exemptions) on 20.09.2020 2. The appeal was to be filed on or before 20.11.2020 3. The appeal filed on 07.06.2024 4. The COVID

Kumar Suman Singh, Patna vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.212 To 216/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 1998-99 & 2001-02 To 2004-05 Kumar Suman Singh………………………..……………………………...……Appellant F-62, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna, Bihar – 800020. [Pan: Aihps1976L] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna…………....….…......……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rinku Singh, Cit – Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2025 Order Per Bench: These Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For Different Assessment Years I.E 1998-99 & 2001-02 To 2004-05 Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Mostly Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 132 Days In Filing The Instant Appeals. The Assessee Has Submitted Applications For Condonation Of Delay Citing Reasonable Grounds. After Considering The Averments Made In The Applications, We Condone The Delay.

outset, we find that there is a delay of 132 days in filing the instant appeals. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay citing reasonable grounds. After considering the averments made in the applications, we condone the delay. I.T.A. Nos.212 to 216/Pat/2023 Assessment Years

Kumar Suman Singh, Patna vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.212 To 216/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 1998-99 & 2001-02 To 2004-05 Kumar Suman Singh………………………..……………………………...……Appellant F-62, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna, Bihar – 800020. [Pan: Aihps1976L] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna…………....….…......……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rinku Singh, Cit – Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2025 Order Per Bench: These Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For Different Assessment Years I.E 1998-99 & 2001-02 To 2004-05 Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Mostly Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 132 Days In Filing The Instant Appeals. The Assessee Has Submitted Applications For Condonation Of Delay Citing Reasonable Grounds. After Considering The Averments Made In The Applications, We Condone The Delay.

outset, we find that there is a delay of 132 days in filing the instant appeals. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay citing reasonable grounds. After considering the averments made in the applications, we condone the delay. I.T.A. Nos.212 to 216/Pat/2023 Assessment Years

Kumar Suman Singh, Patna vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

outset, we find that there is a delay of 132 days in filing the instant appeals. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay citing reasonable grounds. After considering the averments made in the applications, we condone the delay. 3. We also find that no one has appeared

Kumar Suman Singh, Patna vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Patna

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

outset, we find that there is a delay of 132 days in filing the instant appeals. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay citing reasonable grounds. After considering the averments made in the applications, we condone the delay. 3. We also find that no one has appeared

Kumar Suman Singh, Patna vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.212 To 216/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 1998-99 & 2001-02 To 2004-05 Kumar Suman Singh………………………..……………………………...……Appellant F-62, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna, Bihar – 800020. [Pan: Aihps1976L] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna…………....….…......……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rinku Singh, Cit – Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2025 Order Per Bench: These Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For Different Assessment Years I.E 1998-99 & 2001-02 To 2004-05 Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Mostly Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 132 Days In Filing The Instant Appeals. The Assessee Has Submitted Applications For Condonation Of Delay Citing Reasonable Grounds. After Considering The Averments Made In The Applications, We Condone The Delay.

outset, we find that there is a delay of 132 days in filing the instant appeals. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay citing reasonable grounds. After considering the averments made in the applications, we condone the delay. I.T.A. Nos.212 to 216/Pat/2023 Assessment Years