“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

Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1931/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarhydroair Tectonics Pcd V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Limited, 501, Concord बनाम Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Premises Co-Op Society Ltd., Room No. 804, Pratishtha Plot No. 66A, Sector 11, Cbd Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Belapur –400 614, Road, Mumbai –400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach9686C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Kumar Kedia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)

Section 144Section 270ASection 40

restoring the penalty proceedings to the ld.CIT(A).It is also intimated that the quantum appeal has been already restored to him after condonation of delay by the hon’ble ITAT vide order in ITA No.1853/Mum/2025 dated 02.07.2025. 5. In respect of the delay, it is submitted ... took immediate steps to file an appeal as soon as he came to know about the assessment order. It is requested to condone the delay in filing of appeal It is also assured that such delays will not occur in the future

Padma Rao Thigulla, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward 10(4), It Towers, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1160/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1160/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2025-26) Telugu Neravu Vs. Income Tax Officer Srikalahasti Ward -1 Pan:Aaett4108J Chittoor (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri T. Ram Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri T. Ram Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT(DR)

Section 12A

12AB was rejected. 2. There is a delay of 45 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit of the assessee. The learned Counsel for Page 1 of 5 ITA No 1160 of 2025 Telugu Neravu the assessee

Co-Operative Cane Development Unian, Ltd., Lakhipur Kheri vs. ITO Ward-3(4), Lakhipur-1

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 348/LKW/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 253(3)Section 80ASection 80P

following grounds: “1. The Ld CIT(A) NFAC erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 551 days in filing of appeal owing to Covid-19 pandemic and without considering that the delay period is covered by the judgement ... noting of the Registry, the appeal is time barred by 6 days. An application was filed from the assessee’s side for condonation of delay on the ground that the Secretary of the appellant society was on election duty. An affidavit has also been filed from the assessee’s side

Adimoolam Radhakrishnan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-12(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2583/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2583/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Adimoolam Radhakrishnan Ito बनाम #9/5, Masilamani Road, Non-Corporate Ward-12(1), Balaji Nagar, Royapettah, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapr-8170-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Balaji (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri V. Balaji (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147

attributed to the fact the impugned order was served on wrong email-ID and thus, there was delay. The Ld. AR pleaded for condonation of delay. Since there was sufficient cause, we deem it fit to condone the delay and we proceed with disposal of appeal. The grievance

Dhananjay Sanjogta Foundation, Noida vs. CIT Exemption, Income Tax Department, Lucknow

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2464/DEL/2024[24-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 147

professional, there was a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR reiterating the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal. Mohammad Ashfaq Vs. ITO 3. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that ... again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled

DCIT (It) – 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jefferies Singapore Limited, Singapore

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3042/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Ved, A/R (appeared virtually)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 68Section 69C

root of the matter, we decided to adjudicate it first. The cross objection is barred by limitation. The assessee has requested for condonation of delay. The reasons for delay are mentioned in the application supported by an affidavit on record. The delay is condoned. 5. Briefly stated the facts

DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. Uco Bank Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 288/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.288/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata……………..………………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Uco Bank Ltd………………..............…..….…..……........……...…..…..Respondent 10 B.T.M. Sarani, Bbd Bag, Kol-1. [Pan: Aaacu3561B] Appearances By: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sonu Agarwal, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 02, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 24.02.2023 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, We Notice That There Is A Delay Of 294 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. The Revenue Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay Citing Reasonable Grounds. After Considering The Averments Made In The Application, We Condone The Delay. 3. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That In The Present Case, The Tax Effect By The Revenue Is Less Than Rs.60,00,000/-. He Further Stated That The Cbdt Has Issued A Circular No. 9/2024 Dated 17.09.2024, Whereby The Monetary Limits For Filing Of Appeal By The Department Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & High Courts & Slp Before Supreme Court Have Been Increased As A Measure For Reducing Litigation. The

Section 250

outset, we notice that there is a delay of 294 days in filing the instant appeal. The revenue has submitted an application for condonation of delay citing reasonable grounds. After considering the averments made in the application, we condone the delay. 3. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that

M/S. Subhrashi Enclave Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, 10 (2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1963/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1963/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Subhrashi Enclave Pvt. Ltd...…..…………………....Appellant 14-C, M.D. Road, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700007. [Pan: Aascs6378Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit & Somnath Das & Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 02, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.09.2023 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. The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 324 Days. An Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Which Is Also Supported With The Affidavit Of Shri Subhash Sharma, The Director Of The Assessee Company, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Was Passed On 01.09.2023 But The Order Was Communicated To The Assessee On 03.09.2024. Immediately, The Assessee Engaged An Authorized Representative & Filed The Appeal. The Ld. Ar Further Stated That The Notice & Also The Impugned Order Were Not Duly Served Upon The Assessee Due To Mismatch Of Email Address Which Was Provided In Form 35. Therefore, The Assessee Was Not Aware Of The Passing Of The

Section 143(2)Section 250

Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The appeal is time-barred by 324 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed, which is also supported with the affidavit of Shri Subhash Sharma, the director of the assessee company, wherein, it has been pleaded that ... appeal was not intentional but due to aforesaid circumstances and the assessee is not a wilful defaulter. Therefore, the ld. AR prayed for condonation of delay. Considering the above submissions, we find reasonable cause behind such delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 324 days in filing of the present

Shri Girishkumar Ramniklal Doshi, Surendranagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Surendranagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 297/RJT/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.297/Rjt/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Girishkumar Ramniklal Vs. Income Tax Officer Doshi Ward-2, Surendranagar B-601, Retreat, Near Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad - 380015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpd2297E (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Gandhi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

assessee, for Assessment Year 2011-12, is barred by limitation by 469 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. 4.Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that assessee’s mental health condition were deteriorated and, therefore, he got admitted in the Hospital ... relevant medical papers and the death certificate of the assessee, before the Bench. We find that the circumstances narrated in the affidavit for condonation of delay, have clearly explained the sufficient cause. A perusal of the affidavit gives us an impression of existence of mitigating circumstances to enable

Pawan Kumar, Prop. Life Line Rice Mills, Begusarai vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Begusarai

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 15/PAT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Section 144Section 145Section 148Section 250

convenience, the petition filed for 2012-13 (ITA No. 14/Pat/2022) may be reproduced as under: “1. That this is an application for condonation of delay the filing of the present appeal. 2. That the appellant states that in order was passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC under

Pawan Kumar, Prop. Life Line Rice Mills, Begusarai vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Begusarai

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 14/PAT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Section 144Section 145Section 148Section 250

Shreekoteshwer Mahadev Public Trust, Surat vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Surat

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

ITA 1066/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1066/Srt/2024 (Ay 2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Koteshwar Mahadev Public Dcit, Cpc, Post Bag No.2, Trust, B/H. Dholakiya Garden, Electronic City Post Office, बनाम Katargam Main Road, Bangalore-560 500. Vs Surat-395 004 [Pan : Aagts 9911 A] Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Surat अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 254(1)

that in both the years, a different order was passed i.e. in accepting cause of delay in A.Y. 2015-16 and denying the condonation of delay in A.Y. 2014-15. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the plea of assessee that the assessee came to know ... that delay in filing appeal before the Id. CITA) was not intentional or deliberate, therefore, the order of Id. CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in A.Y. 2014-15 is set aside and the delay in filing appeal before the Id. CIT(A) Is condoned. Now adverting

Sita Ram Saini, Chomu, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Prabha Rana, (Adv.) &For Respondent: Mrs. Meenakshi Vohra ( Addl. CIT) a

Section 144Section 154Section 250Section 80C

delay of 29 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed application for condonation of delay with following prayer and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit also :- “3. Hence, the assessee was under bona-fide belief that ... appeal. Your honour, the proper appeal effect yet had not passed and the AR advised the undersigned assessee to file an appeal with condonation of delay. 5. So the appeal with the request for condonation of delay in filing appeal. Your honour it has been held that If there

Mohd Vizzarath Ali, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1271/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1271/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mohd.Vizzarath Ali Vs. Ito, Ward-8(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Avdpa3594K] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.S.Sandhya, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms.P.Sunitha, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 01/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That The Appeal Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 47 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Was Under Medical Treatment For B/L Renal Calculi & Lumbar Spondalysis & He Was Advised Complete Bedrest. The Assessee

For Appellant: Ms.S.Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: : Ms.P.Sunitha, DR

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

outset, it is observed that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 47 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee was under medical treatment for B/L Renal Calculi and lumbar Spondalysis and he was advised complete bedrest. The assessee ... Tribunal was due to the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, which are neither intentional nor deliberate. He, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice. 3. The Ld.DR on the other hand has not raised any objection

Lahar Joshi, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Vadodara

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

ITA 1408/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Chirag B. Khatri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C Dharnidas V.S., Sr. D.R

Section 270A

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) has not decided the case on merit and has not given any opportunity to the assessee to establish ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. In respect of condonation of delay at this juncture the assessee submitted that the assessee has not been given sufficient opportunity to establish that the reason for delay was genuine

Kamlesh, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Range -4(2), Lucknow

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

ITA 429/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 226Section 253(3)Section 69A

application was filed by the assessee I.T.A. No.429/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 5 requesting for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. An affidavit was also filed by her in support of the request for condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. Giving detailed description of the family ... submitted that reasons for late filing of the appeal were really beyond her control. The learned D.R. for Revenue expressed no objection to condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. In view of the foregoing, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted

Anju Bala L/H Om Parkash, Pinjore vs. ITO- Ward-3, Panchkula

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 249/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 249/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Anju Bala बनाम The Ito, Legal Heir Of Shri Om Parkash Ward-3, C/O Dhiman Bansal & Panchkula Associates, 68, Shiv Shakti Colony, Pinjore 134102 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aavpp0395C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Smt. Neelam Dhiman, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By :Dr. Danish Abdullah, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Danish Abdullah, JCIT

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 89(1)

eyes of law and on facts. 2 The learned ADDL/JCIT (A) erred in dismissing appeal that there was no genuine reason of condonation of delay whereas he was tax illiterate person and Orders in her father colleague cases were passed in Jan 2020 to June 2020 and it came ... Anju Bala Legal Heir of Shri Om Parkash, Pinjore 6 4. The ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the plea of condonation of delay submitted by the Assessee and he has rejected the belatedly filing the appeal before him. The ld. Counsel of the Assessee pleaded before us citing

Shri Subhash Sharma, Chandigarh vs. ITO, W-2(3), Chandigarh

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

ITA 1586/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: This Tribunal, As Pointed Out By The Registry. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Alongwith Affidavit Of The Assessee. On Perusing The Application For Condonation Of Delay & Affidavit Of The Assessee, The Delay Of 15 Days In Filing The Appeal Before This Tribunal Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal, as pointed out by the Registry. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit of the assessee. On perusing the application for condonation of delay and affidavit of the assessee, the delay of 15 days in filing

Indrayani Seva Samiti Nyas, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 828/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 250Section 56(2)

Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT(A) erred both on facts and law in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. He failed to appreciate the facts and submissions made in this behalf in its proper perspective. As such ... trust In all fairness and to meet the end of justice, we request your honor to consider above facts and circumstances and to condone the delay in filing the appeal.” 2.1 The ld.AR filed a paper book containing copy of Financial Statements for A.Y.2010-11, copy of Trust Deed, Affidavit

Vicky Prasad Shaw, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 47(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2142/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

decision afresh on merits in this appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) will hear upon the application for condonation of delay as well as on merits of the case and thereafter will pass a speaking order in accordance with law. He may also call a remand report from the AO relating