← 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

Kodiyil Thameem, Payyannur vs. The Incme Tax Officer, Ward 4, Kannur

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

ITA 766/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kodiyil Thameem Abc Sales Corporation, Abc Esquire Payannur, Kannur 670307 [Pan: Afppt3775D] .......... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 4, Kannur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suresh Kumar, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 5

matters. The learned CIT(A), without dealing with, as to how the said explanation does not constitute a reasonable cause had refused to condone the delay without assigning any reason by passing a cryptic order as under: - “Though the petition for condonation of delay in filing of appeal has been ... Court, Bhilwara and Another reported in 2009 (3) SCC 525 wherein the court has taken a view that while deciding an application for condonation of delay the High Court ought not to have gone into the merits of the case. It has been further held:- "5. While deciding an application

D M Educational & Charitable Society, Barnala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Barnala

In the result, the delay is hereby condoned

ITA 855/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jatinder Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

physically to the assessee. In this regard an Affidavit duly executed by the authorized signatory of the assessee society alongwith written application for condonation of delay was submitted before the Ld. Addl. CIT. It was submitted that during the course of video conferencing hearing, the Ld. Addl CIT asked

D M Educational & Charitable Society, Barnala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Barnala

In the result, the delay is hereby condoned

ITA 854/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 854 & 855/CHD/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2021-22 D.M. Educational & Charitable Society VPO Raisar Patiala, Barnala, Punjab- 148101 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO:AAAAD9463D अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम The ITO Ward-1, Barnala प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by: Shri Jatinder Sharma, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 07/01/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date

For Appellant: Shri Jatinder Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

physically to the assessee. In this regard an Affidavit duly executed by the authorized signatory of the assessee society alongwith written application for condonation of delay was submitted before the Ld. Addl. CIT. It was submitted that during the course of video conferencing hearing, the Ld. Addl CIT asked

Hemant Behl, Solan vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 691/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), However The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed On Account Of Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Without Considering The Merits Of The Case. Against The Said Order Of The Ld Cit(A), The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Ms. Komal Thakur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

drawn our reference to the impugned order wherein at para 3, the Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the assessee’s submission seeking condonation of delay and the same reads as under: "That the assessment in the case of the assessee has been framed vide order dated 24/12/2019 under Section ... heard on merit." 5. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the reasons so given seeking condonation of delay and has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It was submitted that the AO was never served any notices and the assessment order as the assessee

Amit Rajnikant Joshi, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

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

ITA 367/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.367/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Amit Rajnikant Joshi The Dy.Cit बनाम/ C-29, Aryaman Bungalows Anand Nagar V/S. Opp. Anand Niketan School Prahaladnagar Road Thaltej, Shilaj Road Ahmedabad – 380 05 Ahmedabad – 380 059 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abmpj 6798 F अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Shrivastav, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

observed that there was a delay of 7 days in filing appeal before us. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit, explaining that the delay was caused due to the critical illness of his mother, who was suffering from Koch’s C5 with quadriparesis ... delay was unintentional and prayed for condonation in the interest of substantial justice. The Departmental Representative (DR) raised no objection to the condonation of delay. We have considered the submissions and find that the cause of delay is genuine and reasonable. There are judicial precedents where it was held that

Shri Devendra Thakershibhai Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 587/AHD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.587/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2913-14 Devendra Thakershibhai The Ito बनाम/ Thakkar Ward-3(2)(1) V/S. Prop. Of Prism Agri Ahmedabad – 380 015 Tradelink Ravjipura Nava Bazar, Bavla Tal: Dascroi Ahmedabad – 380 057 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aospt 8109 B अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 145(2)

appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. Condonation of Delay 4. It was observed that there is delay of 880 days in filing an appeal before us. The assessee has filed an application for condonation ... Therefore, in the present case, nearly one- third of the delay falls within the COVID-19 period, which warrants a liberal approach in condoning the delay. 4.2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471) held that the expression “sufficient cause” must

Salem Starch and Sago Manufacturers Service Industrial Co-Op. Society Ltd., Salem vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Salem

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

ITA 2648/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(2)(c)Section 249(3)Section 51

which involves lot of time. Further, there was continuous holdings concluding with May day which lead to this unavoidable delay and requested to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits. However, the ld. CIT(A) held that there is no "sufficient cause" in terms of section ... find that the said approach of the ld.CIT(A) is neither reasonable nor pragmatic. In our view the ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and decide the appeal on merit. 5. How the power of condonation of delay is to be exercised, has been explained by the Apex

Mahesh Nanabhai Bhatt, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 16(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5489/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar Pransukhka, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 194ASection 194JSection 80C

days in filing the appeal by the assessee. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The assessee has reported that earlier his tax matter was looked after by Chartered Accountant, Mr. P.K. De of Kolkata ... fully functionable and ultimately he expired on 27.02.2024. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the ld. Counsel requested for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and requested for restoring the case to the file of the First Appellate Authority for adjudication on merit. After considering the facts

Ranchi Fuels, Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara

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

ITA 532/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.532/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ranchi Fuels Limtara, Nandghat, Baloda Bazar-492 006 (C.G.) Pan: Aatfr0836L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in its aforesaid order had held that while considering the appellant’s request for condonation of delay the term “sufficient cause” should be considered liberally. Also, the Ld. AR had relied on the judgment 5 Ranchi Fuels Vs. ITO, Bhatapara ... Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly indicated that a liberal approach in 6 Ranchi Fuels Vs. ITO, Bhatapara considering the application for condonation of delay construing sufficient cause has to be adopted and appeal has to be decided on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. “Sufficient cause

Indo Lahri Bio Power Ltd, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 529/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.529/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Indo Lahri Bio Power Limited 38, Saheed Smarak Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aaaci9125K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

otherwise than through email. 3. Per contra, Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (for short, 'Sr.DR') objected to the request for condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee company. It was submitted by her that as the delay involved in filing

Radha Mishra, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur

ITA 509/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.509/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Radha Mishra C/O. Kunj Bihari Mishra, Opp. D.P. Vipra Law College, Ashok Nagar, Sarkanda, Bilaspur-495 001 (C.G.) Pan: Bzspm0698G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

Bilaspur 3. Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) though did not raise any objection to the seeking of the condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal but at the same time, submitted that in the faceless regime physical service of the orders passed

Dinesh Kumar Singh, Raigarh vs. Income Tax Office, Raigarh

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 426/RPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.426/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dinesh Kumar Singh Sonumuda, Kali Mandir, Ward No.42, Raigarh (C.G.)-496 001 Pan: Cqmps5008L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raigarh (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

Memorandum of Appeal” in Form 36 and come up with clean hands qua the correct state of affairs and an explanation for seeking condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 10. As is discernible from the “Memorandum of Appeal” in Form 35, it transpires that the assessee ... find no reason to admit the present appeal, which in turn, involves a delay of 178 days, specifically when no application seeking condonation of delay of the same has been filed before me. Accordingly, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, I refrain from condoning the delay involved in filing

Vishal Enterprise, Vyara vs. NFAC, Delhi, ITO Ward 1, Bardoli, Income Tax Office-Bardoli

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

ITA 1034/SRT/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1034/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Vishal Enterprise, Vs. The Ito, Vyara S.O., Vyara, Surat – 394650, Ward – 1, Gujarat Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfv2047E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2025

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

basis of facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the law on subject, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject ... which was delayed by 329 days. The appellant had not even acknowledged this delay in the Form No.35. He held that in condoning the delay, the appellate authority must be satisfied that there has been due diligence on the part of the appellant and it was not guilty of negligence

Bg Professional Education Society, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 743/JPR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 12ASection 80G

Professional Education Society the Act by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed applications for condonation of delay with following prayers. “1. In this connection it is submitted that the applicant is Trust/Society incorporated on 22/10/2002 having permanent Registration u/s 12AA as well ... Land & Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has advocated for a very liberal approach while considering a case for condonation of delay. The following observations of the Hon'ble Court are notable: 4 BG Professional Education Society "The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay

Bg Professional Education Society, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 713/JPR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 12ASection 80G

Professional Education Society the Act by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed applications for condonation of delay with following prayers. “1. In this connection it is submitted that the applicant is Trust/Society incorporated on 22/10/2002 having permanent Registration u/s 12AA as well ... Land & Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has advocated for a very liberal approach while considering a case for condonation of delay. The following observations of the Hon'ble Court are notable: 4 BG Professional Education Society "The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay

Shaunak Shailesh Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 89/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69A

observed that there was a delay of 44 days in filing of appeal before him. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay stating that at the time of receipt of order, he was travelling and hence could not pass the assessment order to his Chartered Accountant. Subsequently ... support of his case and to prove the source of deposits in his bank account. However, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee on the ground that the application was generic in nature and was a lame excuse cited by the assessee. Further

Indian Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT Corp Circle 1(1)

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

ITA 581/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 90

delay of 60 days in filing of appeal by the Revenue [ITA No. 1527/Chny/2024]. On perusal of the application filed for condonation of delay, and submissions of the Ld. DR, we find there is reasonable cause for delay, which prevented the Department in filing the appeal in time. Thus

Nishank Sakariya, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-4(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2343/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 2(47)(v)

that was because assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing it on time. Hence, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay, for Mr. Nishank Sakariya :: 2 :: which, the Ld.DR objects; But taking note of the reason for delay, we find it adequate to excuse ... delay. Hence, we condone the delay of ‘70’ days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 3. The assessee has raised several grounds against impugned order including the legal issue challenging the jurisdiction of the AO to have re- opened the original assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income

Vital Industries India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-III(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2332/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Srikanth, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

appeal. And since assessee was M/s.Vital Industries India Pvt. Ltd. :: 2 :: prevented by sufficient cause, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay, for which, the Ld.DR didn’t raise any objection and hence, we condone the delay of ‘5’ days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal

Shobika, K.P.Complex, Tuticorin vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Income Tax Office, Tuticorin

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

ITA 2131/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.K. Senthil Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 250

days in filing of the appeal. The assessee has filed a condonation application along M/s.Shobika :: 2 :: with the affidavit before this Tribunal seeking condonation of delay. According to the Ld.AR, the impugned order dated 18.10.2023 was forwarded to the registered e-mail ID of the assessee which was inoperative ... bona fide belief that the e-mail account of the assessee was operative, the delay caused is not deliberate. Therefore, assessee pleads for condoning the delay. The Ld.DR opposed condoning the delay. However, it has been brought to our notice that the assessee was unaware of the outcome