← 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

Kanhaiya Power Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 876/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250

time barred by 106 days. An application along with an affidavit seeking I.T.A. No.: 876/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kanhaiya Power Pvt. Ltd. condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee for condoning the delay stating as follows: Application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal ... please be condoned and the case of your petitioner be heard on merit.” 1.2 The assessee has also filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal, which is as under: “I, Dipak Kumar Sawaria, son of Late Shankar Lal Sanwaria aged, about 59 years

Sabari Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2702/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2702/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Sabari Foundation Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, Old No.5, New No.9, Vs. Corporate Ward 6(1), Seethammal Colony Extn., Chennai. Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aaecs 0298R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar,Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A) - Nfac Order Dated 20.06.2022, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 795 Days In Filing This Appeal. The Assessee Company Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal Along With Affidavit Of The Director Of The Assessee Company. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Petition For Belated Filing Of This Appeal Are As Under:- “The Managing Director Of The Appellant Company Aged Around 59 Years Old Was Unwell Owing To Multiple Business Failures & Closed Businesses & The Appellant Company Was Also Closed & Deleted/Struck Off From The Roc, Chennai Vide Order Dated 09.08.2018 Due To Which There Were No Employees In The Company During The Pendency Of The First Appeal Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar,CIT
Section 250

There is a delay of 795 days in filing this appeal. The assessee company has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal along with affidavit of the Director of the assessee company. The reasons stated in the condonation petition ... time. There is sufficient reason and no latches can be attributed to the assessee for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 4. At the very outset, we notice that

Jagannathan Baskar, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 2629/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2629/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Jagannathan Baskar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H88, New Astc Hudco, Ward -1, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Hosur Hosur 635 109. [Pan: Adqpb 9089F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.B. Sathyamurthy, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. D. Komali Krishna, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri B.B. Sathyamurthy, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. D. Komali Krishna, IRS, CIT
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The registry has noted delay of 02 days in filing the appeal. Considering the period of delay, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, was as employee of Titan Company Limited ... Appeals (CIT(A)) on 15 July 2024 (within 30 days from the date of order under Section 154), along with a petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, when the time allowed for the same is reckoned from the original date of the intimation order under Section

Sarla Bhargava, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is fully allowed in above terms

ITA 1161/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalsarla Bhargava, Sb-166, Gandhi Nagar, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur 302 001. Pan No.:Acgpb 5078B ..... Appellant Vs. Ito,Ward-6(4), Jaipur – 302 001. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Anoop Bhatia, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT, Ld
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 69

appeal of the assessee before us was delayed by 23 days. On this issue the assessee filed an affidavit alongwith an application for condonation of delay through her legal heir, as the assessee individual expired on 14.05.2019. We have carefully considered the affidavit and application for condonation of delay

Mv Karmari Charitable Trust, Hubli vs. ITO Exemptions Ward 1(1) Hubli, C R Building Hubli

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

ITA 2161/BANG/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2024-25

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, D.R
Section 12ASection 253(5)

submitted that this appeal is filed belatedly by 338 days before this Tribunal instead of 368 days as mentioned in the application of condonation of delay filed u/s 253(5) of the Act along with an affidavit in original. For the sake of reference and convenience, the application for condonation ... well as affidavit filed by the assessee, we find that explanation given is Bonafide and it is a good and sufficient reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. It is noted that there is no malafide intention on behalf of the assessee in not filing

Raahat Humanitarian Foudation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 4775/MUM/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2024-25 Raahat Humanitarian Foundation, Cit (Exemptions), A 204, Zubaida Park, Behind Simla Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill Vs. Park, Old Mumbai Pune Road, Mtnl Te Building Pedder Road, Dr Kausa Mumbra, Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Thane-400612. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaetr 9830 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: 17/12/2024
Section 11Section 12A

assessee referred to the Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the application for the condonation of application for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal and delay in filing the appeal and submitted that there was a bona fide delay of four days in filing ... four days explained appeal before us. In view of the small delay of four days explained by way of a sufficient reason, we condoned the delay in filing the by way of a sufficient reason, we condoned the delay in filing the by way of a sufficient reason, we condoned

Access Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(1), Mumbai

ITA 601/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Access Diamonds The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Office No.15, Floor- Central Circle-7(1), Mezzanine, Aayakar Bhavan, Laxmidas Khimji Market, Vs. Mumbai 36/38, Kalbadevi Road, Vittalwadi, Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aahca0551C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. A.R
Section 271(1)(c)

assessee’) brought to the notice of the Bench that this appeal is filed late by 1287 days and sought to condone the delay by moving an application for condonation of delay supporting with an affidavit on the grounds inter-alia that the assessee had engaged Shri Manish Panwar, Chartered Accountant ... delay, which is neither intentional nor wilful. 2. However, on the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue opposed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the late filing of appeals in this case is apparently malafide due to callous attitude of the assessee and prayed

Sanjay Patel, Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Patan

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

ITA 1237/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2014-15 Sanjay Patel Vs. Ito, Ward-1 Krishna Mill Compound Patan. Station Road Unjha, Mehsana Gujarat 384 170 Pan : Alppp 5864 K (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Parimalsingh B. Parmar, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271Section 68

appeal. In the given case, I humbly request your honor to give me one more opportunity on the ground of natural justice and condone the delay of 7 4 months in filling of appeal for AY. 2014-15 and oblige. I hope your honor will accede to my request ... issue, and rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. We have considered the submissions of both parties regarding the issue of condonation of delay, and gone through the order of the ld.CIT(A). While the learned CIT(A) discussed this issue in detail and concluded that the reasons attributed

Sankar Ghosh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 459/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 68

instead of entering into merit of the case in both appeals has only submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did wrong in not condoning the delay though the assessee has filed a condonation petition with sufficient reasons. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has drawn attention to the Tribunal regarding ... Cumulatively, all these factors delays the filing of appeal by 96 days which I pray your goodself to kindly condone. 6) Kindly condone the delay in filing the appeal and oblige.” In a 144/147 appeal “ Respected Sir, Kindly refer to the appeal hereby filed. I submit as under

Sankar Ghosh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-50(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 458/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 68

instead of entering into merit of the case in both appeals has only submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did wrong in not condoning the delay though the assessee has filed a condonation petition with sufficient reasons. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has drawn attention to the Tribunal regarding ... Cumulatively, all these factors delays the filing of appeal by 96 days which I pray your goodself to kindly condone. 6) Kindly condone the delay in filing the appeal and oblige.” In a 144/147 appeal “ Respected Sir, Kindly refer to the appeal hereby filed. I submit as under

Tirupati Nag, Kolkata vs. ITO, Burdwan

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

ITA 1524/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 5Section 80D

Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order there was submitting that the Ld. CIT(A) did wrong by not condoning the delay though the assessee has submitted sufficient reasons that the assessee being an individual salaried employee rendering services at the whim of the management of company travelling from ... bona fides is imputable to the appellant." 5.1. In N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy [1998 (7) SCC 123], this Court held: "It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only

Tirupati Nag, Kolkata vs. ITO, Burdawan

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

ITA 1523/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 5Section 80D

Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order there was submitting that the Ld. CIT(A) did wrong by not condoning the delay though the assessee has submitted sufficient reasons that the assessee being an individual salaried employee rendering services at the whim of the management of company travelling from ... bona fides is imputable to the appellant." 5.1. In N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy [1998 (7) SCC 123], this Court held: "It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only

Sri Vidyadhaan Trust, Thenimalai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward 3, Chennai

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

ITA 2716/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2716/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 M/S. Sri Vidyadhaan Trust, The Income Tax Officer, 21/3, Bala Nagar, Vs. Exemptions Ward 3, Thandarampet Main Road, Chennai. Thenimalai, Thiruvannamalai – 606 603. Pan: Aahts 3285N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 144Section 250

There is a delay of 374 days in filing this appeal. The authorized signatory of the assessee trust has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated in the condonation application for belated filing ... view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 4. At the very outset, we notice that

Banyan Projects India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Corporate Range-I, Chennai

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

ITA 2563/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2562 & 2563/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Banyan Projects India Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 770, 100 Ft Road, Bangalore North, Income Tax, Bangalore 560 038. Corporate Range 1, Chennai. [Pan: Aadcb6525D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154

with a delay of 2193 days in filing the appeal. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay on 11.04.2022 and after considering the submissions made in the affidavit, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the affidavit for condonation of abnormal delay of 2193 days ... since the assessee could not file any supporting documentary evidence for the reasons stated in the affidavit for condonation of delay in filing appeal. 5. The ld. DR Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT submits that the ld. CIT(A) afforded various opportunities to the assessee to substantiate along with supporting

Banyan Projects India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Corporate Range-1, Chennai

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

ITA 2562/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2562 & 2563/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Banyan Projects India Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 770, 100 Ft Road, Bangalore North, Income Tax, Bangalore 560 038. Corporate Range 1, Chennai. [Pan: Aadcb6525D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154

with a delay of 2193 days in filing the appeal. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay on 11.04.2022 and after considering the submissions made in the affidavit, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the affidavit for condonation of abnormal delay of 2193 days ... since the assessee could not file any supporting documentary evidence for the reasons stated in the affidavit for condonation of delay in filing appeal. 5. The ld. DR Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT submits that the ld. CIT(A) afforded various opportunities to the assessee to substantiate along with supporting

Goodwill Wealth Management Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

ITA 2561/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2561/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Goodwill Wealth Management Private Limited, No. 73, 1St Floor, Tarana Complex, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aaecg9766E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement Vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 2(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri Raghav Rajeev Menon, Advocate Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit 17.12.2024 19.12.2024 आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.07.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

Section 270A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, CHEΝΝΑΙ श्री एस.एस. विश्वनेत्र रवि

Modern Facility and Security Management, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(6), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2559/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2558 & 2559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Modern Facility & Security Vs. Income Tax Officer, Management, C/. Moses Ravikumar, Non Corporate Ward 19(1), Sabari Nivas, No. 10, Gurudeva Nagar, Chennai. Iaf Road, East Tambaram, Selaiyur Post, Chennai 600 073. [Pan:Aarfm7280R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Both Dated 31.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 As Well As Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 154

short]. 2. We find that both the appeals are filed with a delay of 188 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay explaining 2 I.T.A. No.2558 & 2559/Chny/24 reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay. On perusal of the condonation petition and upon

Modern Facility and Security Management, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2558/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2558 & 2559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Modern Facility & Security Vs. Income Tax Officer, Management, C/. Moses Ravikumar, Non Corporate Ward 19(1), Sabari Nivas, No. 10, Gurudeva Nagar, Chennai. Iaf Road, East Tambaram, Selaiyur Post, Chennai 600 073. [Pan:Aarfm7280R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Both Dated 31.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 As Well As Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 154

short]. 2. We find that both the appeals are filed with a delay of 188 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay explaining 2 I.T.A. No.2558 & 2559/Chny/24 reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay. On perusal of the condonation petition and upon

Smt. Vaikuntam Vidya, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(6), Chennai

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

ITA 2556/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2556/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Vaikuntam Vidya, F1, B Block, 23/8, Sri Mathangi Aditya Apartments, Venkatachalam Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adzpv5009Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement Vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 19(6), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit 17.12.2024 19.12.2024 आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.05.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

Section 68

year 2012-13. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 68 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay explaining reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay. On perusal of the condonation petition and upon hearing both

Ananvaya Nyasah, Jaipur vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 752/JPR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 751 & 752/JPR/2024 Ananvaya Nyasah 16-A Shubham Vihar Royal City Kalwar Road, Hathoj, B.O., Jaipur. cuke Vs. The CIT-Exemption, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAITA3590P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Anoop Bhatia (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs. Meenakshi Vohra ( CIT) ( Th. V.C.) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hea

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia (C.A.)For Respondent: Mrs. Meenakshi Vohra ( CIT) ( Th. V.C.) a
Section 12ASection 80G

delay of 01 days in filing of the appeals by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed applications for condonation of delay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit also :- “In the aforesaid context, it is humbly submitted that appeal ... support of the contentions so raised the Authorized signatory filed an affidavit to support the contentions raised in the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2.2 The ld. AR of the assessee appearing in these appeals submitted that the assessee is serious on the duties