← 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

Sri Balaji Educational Trust, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Salem

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

ITA 3293/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3293/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 250

Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC), we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record ... appeal afresh and if the delay is condoned to consider the appeal on merits. The assessee is directed to file the petition for condonation of delay justifying the reasonable cause as contended. The assessee is further directed to appear before FAA without seeking unnecessary adjournments and cooperate with appellate proceedings

Muthusamy Saravanakaumar, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 4(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 3130/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3130/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Srinithi, Advocate for Mr. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R.Kavitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

filed further appeal before FAA. 3. There was a delay of 175 days in filing the appeal before the FAA. The FAA without condoning the delay dismissed the appeal in limine. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of the FAA. 4. We have heard the parties ... appeal before the FAA is not wilful or deliberate. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand vehement opposed the condonation of delay. Muthusamy Saravanakumar :- 3 -: 6. Considering the facts and circumstances unique to the present case, we are of the considered view that there is a reasonable

Hasmukh Hiralal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 7532/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarhasmukh Hiralal Shah National Faceless 9/13, Nehru Nagar, Opp. Appeal Centre Bdd Chawl No. 9, Worli Vs. /Ito-22(1)(6), Mumbai-400 018 Room No. 206, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aavps2340A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

Hiralal Shah the Assessing Officer, Ward 22(1)(6), Mumbai[hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer”], dated 15.04.2021, for Assessment Year 2018–19. Condonation of delay 2. The Registry has noted a delay of 19 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition ... condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. In the affidavit, the assessee has stated that he became aware of the order of the learned CIT(A) only upon receipt of a recovery communication from the Income-tax Officer and thereafter, without any undue delay, he collected the relevant papers

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Raheja Universal Pvt Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5344/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ

Global Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer(Exem), Ward-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3463/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Hon’Bleglobal Education Trust, Ito (Exemption) Ward 1(3), 9, 1St Floor, Brijwasi Building Mumbai Vs. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai 400 063. Pan : Aaatg8496J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta
Section 10(11)Section 11Section 143(1)Section 249(3)

dated 10.01.2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 the resultant day was about 1079 days. The learned CIT(A) has however, refused to condone the delay on the ground that the appellant has 3 ITA 3463/MUM/2025 Global Education Trust not established sufficient cause. It is this order which is subject ... SC/0932/2013, after taking a survey of several decisions holding the field, has culled out principles which are germane while considering the prayer for condonation of delay. The principles set out in para 15 and 16 of the judgment (as reported in Manupatra) are as under: “15. From the aforesaid authorities

Sophia Amin, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3), Srinagar

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 98/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Ubaid Nazir (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144

strength of condonation petition which is accompanied by affidavit of the Assessee. 2. The only prayer made by Ld. AR is condonation of delay and another opportunity of hearing before lower authorities which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. 3. Keeping in mind the principles of natural justice

Tarouna Cold Storage Private Limited, Purnea vs. ITO Ward 3(1) Purnea, Purnea

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

ITA 539/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

appeal of the assessee is filed belatedly by 306 days. In this regard, Id. AR filed an application for condonation of delay along with affidavit stating sufficient reasons therein for delay in filing the appeal, which are not found to be false. Therefore, the delay of 306 days in filing

Bhaskar Rajaram Thorat, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2302/PUN/2025[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2026

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Chinmayy Pathak (virtual)For Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

merits of the case. He submitted that delay of 210 days was on account of reasonable cause duly mentioned in the application for condonation of delay filed before the Ld.CIT(A). He only prayed for condoning the delay and restore the issues raised on merits to the file of Ld.CIT ... Aggrieved with these additions, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 210 days. Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation. We, on perusal of the reasons for delay, find that assessee is basically from mofussil area residing

Bhaskar Rajaram Thorat, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2300/PUN/2025[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2026

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Chinmayy Pathak (virtual)For Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

merits of the case. He submitted that delay of 210 days was on account of reasonable cause duly mentioned in the application for condonation of delay filed before the Ld.CIT(A). He only prayed for condoning the delay and restore the issues raised on merits to the file of Ld.CIT ... Aggrieved with these additions, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 210 days. Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation. We, on perusal of the reasons for delay, find that assessee is basically from mofussil area residing

Chrysalis Play School Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3586/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3586/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Chrysalis Play School Private Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 12, South Mada Street, Srinagar Income Tax, Colony, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aaicc2959D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sudarshan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.12.2024 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Faridabad For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 273 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, In 2

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 170A

year 2022-23. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 273 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, in 2 I.T.A. No.3586/Chny/25 the interest of justice ... condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset, we note that the assessee filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] on 06.10.2022 admitting a total income

Jude Antony Durai Raj, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 3585/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3585/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Jude Antony Durai Raj, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of B-67, 17Th Cross Street, Maharaja Income Tax, Nagar, Tirunelveli 627 011. Circle 1, Tirunelveli. [Pan: Addpj2991H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sudarshan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 59 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, In 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT
Section 43CSection 44ASection 50C

year 2019-20. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 59 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, in 2 I.T.A. No.3585/Chny/25 the interest of justice ... condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee sold immovable property for an amount of ₹.26,50,000/- by cash, but, however, in the return of income the assessee disclosed the sale consideration at ₹.3,02,155/-, whereas

Ramanaikkan Pa Coop Bank Ltd. S-202, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

ITA 3551/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao&

For Appellant: Shri A. Tamilamudhan, CAFor Respondent: Shri SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

year 2020-21. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 28 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, in 2 LTA. No.3551/Chiny/25 the interest of justice ... condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. | When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Id. AR Shri A. Tamilamudhan, CA drew our attention to ground No. 3 raised in the grounds of appeal and submits that the assessee challenged assumption of jurisdiction under section

Ganapathy Educational and Charitable Trust, Tirupur vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 3550/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3550/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: - Ganapathy Educational & Charitable Vs. The Commissioner Of Trust, 182, East Thottam, Income Tax (Exemption), Mavilamparai, Kalapuram, Udumalpet, Chennai. Tirupur 642 102. [Pan:Aabtg3011A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Paramasivam, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri Paramasivam, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 80G

activities for the betterment of people particularly students from rural area. He prayed that the ld. CIT(E) may be directed to condone the delay and grant approval under section 80G of the Act. 4. The ld. DR Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT vehemently opposed the submissions ... submits that the assessee has not filed 3 I.T.A. Nos.3550/Chny/25 petition for condonation of delay of filing application Form 10AB and moreover, no charitable activities carried out by the assessee. Thus, he prayed to confirm the order passed by the ld. CIT(E). 5. Heard both the parties and perused

Yuvasakthi Welfare Association, Pollachi vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3549/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3548 & 3549/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: - Yuvasakthi Welfare Association, Vs. The Commissioner Of Ntpc-Mcet Campus, Udumalpet Income Tax (Exemption), Road, Pollachi 642 003. Chennai. [Pan:Aabay1616J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Paramasivam, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.09.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai Rejecting The Applications Dated 28.03.2025 In Form No. 10Ab Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Seeking Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Act As Well As Seeking Approval Under Section 80G Of The Act Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Paramasivam, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 3Section 80G

assessee has not filed the application before the extended due date of 30.06.2024 and moreover, the assessee has not filed petition for condonation of delay in filing application. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application filed in Form 10AB under section 3 I.T.A. Nos.3548 & 3549/Chny/25 ... that the assessee made request vide its letter dated 29.08.2025 for further time for filing the details as well as filing petition for condonation of delay, but, however, without affording reasonable time, the ld. CIT(E) hurriedly passed order dated 24.09.2025. He submits that the assessee is ready to furnish

Yuvasakthi Welfare Association, Pollachi vs. CIT(Exemption), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3548/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3548 & 3549/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: - Yuvasakthi Welfare Association, Vs. The Commissioner Of Ntpc-Mcet Campus, Udumalpet Income Tax (Exemption), Road, Pollachi 642 003. Chennai. [Pan:Aabay1616J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Paramasivam, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.09.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai Rejecting The Applications Dated 28.03.2025 In Form No. 10Ab Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Seeking Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Act As Well As Seeking Approval Under Section 80G Of The Act Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Paramasivam, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 3Section 80G

assessee has not filed the application before the extended due date of 30.06.2024 and moreover, the assessee has not filed petition for condonation of delay in filing application. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application filed in Form 10AB under section 3 I.T.A. Nos.3548 & 3549/Chny/25 ... that the assessee made request vide its letter dated 29.08.2025 for further time for filing the details as well as filing petition for condonation of delay, but, however, without affording reasonable time, the ld. CIT(E) hurriedly passed order dated 24.09.2025. He submits that the assessee is ready to furnish

Xl Colour Coating, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-15(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3505/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3505/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Xl Colour Coating, Vs. The Income Tax Officer , Plot No. 76, Industrial Developed Plots, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Perungudi, Chennai 600 096. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafx0897J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sbr Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri SBR Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

year 2016-17. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 211 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. 2 I.T.A. No.3505/Chny/25 Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, in the interest of justice ... condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset, the ld. AR Shri Y. Sridhar, CA submits that there was no compliance by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed exparte

Nafeeja Bi, Shimoga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shivamogga

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

ITA 2323/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Nafeeja Bi, Ito, W/O Shabbir Ahamed Nusrath Manzil, Ward – 1, Jannath Nagar Sagar, Vs. Shivamogga – 1. Sagar – 577 401, Karnataka. Pan No : Cqkpb 0509 D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Varun Bhat, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Varun Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 250Section 253Section 44A

prejudicial to the interest of the Appellant. Page 2 of 6 That the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the condonation of delay application without considering the settled position of law that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves ... negligence but occurred due to reasonable and genuine causes beyond the control of the assessee. That the learned CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated The appeal on merits, particularly when the assessee had a strong prima facie case That in A.Y. 2018-19, the department itself

Hira Manek Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2020-

ITA 8500/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P

days, respectively. Along with both appeals, ITAs No.8499 & 8500/Mum/2025 (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2020-21) 2 the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, which is duly supported by an affidavit sworn by the Chairman of the assessee society, submitting as follows: – 3. The Appellant is a Co-operative ... addition and which would be against the principle of natural justice.” 3. We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag

Hira Manek Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2020-

ITA 8499/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P

days, respectively. Along with both appeals, ITAs No.8499 & 8500/Mum/2025 (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2020-21) 2 the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, which is duly supported by an affidavit sworn by the Chairman of the assessee society, submitting as follows: – 3. The Appellant is a Co-operative ... addition and which would be against the principle of natural justice.” 3. We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag

Tirth Global Foundation, Chembur vs. ITO 27(3)(1) Mumbai, Vashi

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

ITA 7266/MUM/2025[AY 25-26 to AY 29-30]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Tirth Global Foundation V/S. Income Tax Officer–27(3)(1), 601, Glass View Society, Plot बनाम Vashi Railway Station, No. 13, Pestom Sagar, Road No. Mumbai – 400 703, 3, Opp. Shoppers Stop, Maharashtra Chembur, Mumbai – 400089, Mumbai, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadtt5346D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ryan Saldanha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)
Section 12A

application within such period…. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs serious risk.” We therefore, condone the delay setting aside the appellate order and proceed to adjudicate the grounds on merit. 5. According to the order, the trust filed an application ... this regard, the assessee relies upon Circular 7 of 2024 which have extended the time period to 30.06.2024.Request was made to condone such delay since the Trustees were under impression that the provisional approval was for 5 years or 10 years. For the first time the Trustees were applying