← 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

Ranvijay Haldhar Singh, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appealate Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5430/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Tejas Sodha, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)

submitted that this caused delay of 55 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal was unintentional and prayed for the condonation of delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. 2.4. The Ld. DR did not raise any objections to the submissions of the assessee

Sea Face Park Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre

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

ITA 5417/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2021-22 Sea Face Park Co. Ito Ward 19(3)(1) Operative Housing Piramal Chambers Society Limited Mumbai- 400012. 50, Bhulabhai Desai Vs. Road, Maharashtra- 400026. Pan: Aaaas3577R Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

provisions of law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erroneously rejected the Assessee's application for condonation of delay of 52 days in filing of the appeal 2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and as per the provisions ... Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before this tribunal.” 3. The Ld.AR referring to the application filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay before the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that reason for the delay in filing the appeal was specifically mentioned. He submitted that, assessee was trying to settle

ACIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. Acc Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3174/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChoksiFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subhash
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 32

note that there is delay of 24 days in filing the present appeal. The Revenue has filed application seeking for condonation of delay in filing the appeal along with affidavit. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee did not dispute the reasons for delay in filing appeal stated

Income Tax Officer-2(1), Lucknow vs. Shri Jai Singh, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69A

vide I.T.A. No.443/Lkw/2020 has been filed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of the I. T. Act. An application seeking condonation of delay was filed by Revenue stating the following reasons: “Due to nationwide situation arising out of Covid-19 pandemic and further in view ... faced by the country on account of Covid-19 pandemic.” (C.1) The learned A.R. for the assessee did not express any objection to condonation of delay. In view of the foregoing and considering the reasons stated by Revenue, in the specific facts and circumstances of the present case, the appeal

Mr. Jai Singh, Lucknow vs. ITO, Range-2(5), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 368/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69A

vide I.T.A. No.443/Lkw/2020 has been filed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of the I. T. Act. An application seeking condonation of delay was filed by Revenue stating the following reasons: “Due to nationwide situation arising out of Covid-19 pandemic and further in view ... faced by the country on account of Covid-19 pandemic.” (C.1) The learned A.R. for the assessee did not express any objection to condonation of delay. In view of the foregoing and considering the reasons stated by Revenue, in the specific facts and circumstances of the present case, the appeal

Mr. Roshan A Kudalkar Through Legal Heir Mr. Swaroop R Kudalkar, Khed, Ratnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-3, Ratnagiri

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2276/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2276/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr.Roshan A Kudalkar V The Income Tax Officer, (Through Legal Heir S Ward-3, Ratnagiri. Mr.Swaroop R Kudalkar), Room No.10/7, Virangula, Behind Animal Hospital Khed, Ratnagiri – 415709. Pan: Agkpk3817B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Smt. Shraddha Nichai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 19.08.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevalling In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Intimating About His Intention To Dismiss Appeal For Delay Of 46 Days In Filing Form 35. Accordingly, The Order So Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Be Kindly Quashed & Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Be Kindly Directed To Condone The Delay & Allow The Appellant To File It Submission On Merits & Legality. Accordingly, Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

Section 243ASection 250

Accordingly, the order so passed by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC be kindly quashed and Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC be kindly directed to condone the delay and allow the Appellant to file it submission on merits and legality. Accordingly, Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect ... opportunity to the Assessee to explain the Delay of 44 days. The assessee had filed a submission with Form No.35 requesting for Condonation of Delay. Ld.AR submitted that there was a valid reason as Assessee had died in 2021, but prior to that Assessee was severely ill. Therefore, ld.CIT

Roxiler Systems Private Limited, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward5(4), Pune

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

ITA 2078/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2078/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Roxiler Systems Pvt. Ltd., A 508, Kamal Green Leaf, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Khadakwasala, Pune – 411024. Ward-5(4), Pune. Pan: Aahcr8766J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By : Shri Sharad S. Vaze & Shri Amod S. Vaze – Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)Addl./Jcit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2022-23Dated 20/08/2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From An Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 19/08/2023.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, Rejection Of Claim U/S 80Iac Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) Is Beyond The Powers Of Cpc, Bengaluru In The Powers Of Cps, Bengaluru In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-Nfac Delhi Is Not Justified In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Iac Of The Act. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Omit Or Substitute Any Of The Grounds At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Sharad S. Vaze and Shri Amod S. Vaze – AR’sFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai – Add.CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 80ISection 80J

different where an assessee does a particular act not within specified time but after the expiry thereof and makes an application for condonation of delay. In such cases, depending on the language of the statute and the object sought to be achieved by prescribing the time limit, it would

Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale, Pune vs. Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1676/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT
Section 1Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 269SSection 69C

following grounds : “The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other - On facts and in law, 1) The appellant requests for condonation of delay of 133 days in filing of the appeal since there was reasonable cause on his part in not filing the appeal within prescribed time limit

M/S Shrigopal Rameshkumar Sales Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. Assistant Comissioner Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

learned Counsel, Shri Kapil Hirani, appearing for the assessee, at the very outset, invited attention of the Bench to the Affidavit filed seeking condonation of delay and took us through the contents of the Affidavit and the supporting documents filed in support of prayer seeking condonation of delay ... substance of the application seeking condonation of delay is that the appeal was filed through the Counsel of the assessee, Shri Vijay Chandak, Advocate, who, through his staff, filed the copy of the appeal before the Office of the Departmental Representative (DR), ITAT, on 07/05/2018, as is procedurally required

Rishi Khare, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(6), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 827/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.827/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Rishi Khare Vs. Ito, Ward-12(6) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Amjpk4465G] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Pankaj Sancheti, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.05.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That The Appeal Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 45 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Was Not Informed Of The Issuance Of The Order Dated 13.05.2024 By The Ld.Cit(A) & He Was Under The Genuine Belief That The Matter

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Sancheti, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 90

outset, it is observed that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 45 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee was not informed of the issuance of the order dated 13.05.2024 by the Ld.CIT(A) and he was under ... assessee further submitted that he has always been a law abiding citizen and committed to fulfilling tax obligations. 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, opposing the petition filed by the assessee

Elumalai Sumathi, Bapatla vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 1165/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1165/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Elumalai Sumathi Vs. Income Tax Officer Bapatla Ward-1 [Pan :Abipe4083C] Ongole (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri U.Mini Chandran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Pertaining To A.Y.2016-17 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.36,60,000 As Unexplained Investment U/S 69 Of The Act After Having Admitted The Additional Evidence Filed By The Assessee Under Rule 46A. 2. Any Other Ground Or Grounds That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: : Shri U.Mini Chandran, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 69

time of hearing. 2. This appeal filed by the Assessee is time barred by 7 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that she could not file appeal in time due to lack of proper awareness and knowledge of ITAT proceedings and its timelines ... delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal were neither deliberate nor on account of any malafide intention. She, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The Ld.DR opposed petition filed for condonation of delay. 4. We have gone through the condonation petition filed

Loveen Babu Vuppala, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1121/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Loveen Babu Vuppala Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward-9(1) [Pan : Alppv1796E] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.Aluru V Sai Sudha, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], Kolkata, Pertaining To A.Y.2021-22 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay & Not Admitting The Appeal 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That There Was No Sufficient Cause For Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal

For Appellant: Ms.Aluru V Sai Sudha, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234A

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.CIT(A)], Kolkata, pertaining to A.Y.2021-22 on the following grounds : 1. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay and not admitting the appeal 2. The CIT(A) erred in holding that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing ... erred in going beyond the scope of his authority u/s 119(2)(b) in not considering of application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal 4. CIT(A) erred in upholding the intimation and denial of foreign tax credit by CPC 5. The order

R. Neelima Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 540/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 45

seen that there is a delay of 1309 days in filing of appeal before us. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay along with an Affidavit explaining the ITA No.540/Hyd/2023 2 reasons for such delay. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the order ... appeal before the ITAT was not intentional and was out of control of the assessee. Accordingly, he prayed before the bench to condone the delay. 2.1 Per contra, the Learned Department Representative (“Ld. DR”) submitted that there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and it should

ITO, Kolkata vs. Kolkata Reserve Bank Employees Cooperative Society Limited, Kokata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1689/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19 Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata Reserve Bank Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, Employees Cooperative Credit Kolkata-700107 Vs Society Limited, West Bengal, 13, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata - 700001 West Bengal, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabak6244L Present For: Appellant By : Shri Akhil Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 24.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra:

For Appellant: Shri Akhil Kumar, SR. DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 250

outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 03 days in filing the appeal. An application for condonation of delay has been filed. However, it is noted from the Limitation Certificate of the Ld. Pr. CIT that the appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A) was received

Manoj Kumar Kar, Kolkata vs. Ranchi Handloom Pvt Ltd, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1400/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. This appeal of the revenue is time barred by 73 days and a condonation of delay application has been filed by the revenue. Considering the averments made in the application and the shortness of delay period, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby

Saviynt India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1962/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Raj Singh, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

number 35 at column number 15 only few lines can be written and therefore the assessee did not made a detailed application for condonation of delay along with the affidavit. Therefore, he submitted that the delay may be condoned. 7. He also submitted on the merits of the case that ... wrongly made. 8. The learned departmental representative vehemently submitted that assessee has not given a sufficient reason but given a general reason for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the learned CIT–A for 38 days and therefore no fault can be found with the order of the learned

Tata Chemicals Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year: 2017-18 Tata Chemicals Limited Pcit-2, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 26(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

matter could have ever given.” 2. There is a delay in filing this appeal by 220 days. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal on 29.12.2023. It is reported in the condonation application that the order u/s 263 of the Act passed ... Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst, Katiji & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 460 of 1987 dated 19.12.1987 held that sufficient cause for the purpose of condonation of delay should be interpreted with a view to do even handed justice on merit in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merit

Hotel Deepak, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -3, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3562/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Rohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. A.R
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 250

delay of 6 days. The delay was neither intentional nor malafide but because of the aforesaid reason. The Assessee in support of condonation of delay, has also filed duly sworn affidavit dated 06.11.2024. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee. Considering the delay as miniscule

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vastu Sangrahalaya, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption ), Circle -1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2504/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Paranjpe, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250

date prescribed. Admittedly the Ld. CIT (Exemption) on the application of the Assessee u/s 119 (2)(b) of the Act seeking condonation of delay in filling Form no. 10B for the AY under consideration and by following para 5 of CBDT Circular no. 02/2020 dated 03-01-2020 wherein considering ... COVID-19 epidemic, power was entrusted to the specified authorities for relaxation/condonation of delay upto 365 days, has condoned the delay in filling 10B {filed on 16-03-2021} vide order dated 08-08-20224 u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act and therefore we are inclined to set aside

Bhartiya Aadarsh Shikshan Samiti, Mandsaur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 319/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Bhartiya Aadarsh Deputy Commissioner Of Shikshan Samiti, Income-Tax (Exemption), Manas Bhawan, Bhopal बनाम/ Sanjit Road, Vs. Mandsaur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabab2693N Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta, C.A. & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ca & Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri K. Bala Murali Krishna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.12.2024

Section 11Section 12ASection 144

assessee and passed impugned order as ex-parte on 29.12.2023. Ld. AR next submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp. Referring to contents of affidavit, Ld. AR submitted that the prescribed period of 60 days for filing of present