← 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

Nandan Sen, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 2(1), It, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1929/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos. 1928 & 1929/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 Nandan Sen,……………………………..…………Appellant Hb-87, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700106, West Bengal [Pan:Ayqps4319G] -Vs.- Assistant Director Of Income Tax,………...Respondent Cpc, Bengaluru

Section 143(1)

seven years eight months and twenty-five days for assessment year 2014-15. The assessee also filed a petition for condonation of delay. After considering the written submission of the assessee, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the condonation petition filed by the assessee saying that –“after 2019, his period ... assessee, we find that the assessee has not challenged the orders passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) with respect of the condonation of delay. Therefore, it remained unchallenged. However, in view of the interest of justice, we have considered the reasons mentioned in the condonation petitions, which were filed before

Nandan Sen, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 2(1), It, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1928/KOL/2024[2013-2014 ]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos. 1928 & 1929/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 Nandan Sen,……………………………..…………Appellant Hb-87, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700106, West Bengal [Pan:Ayqps4319G] -Vs.- Assistant Director Of Income Tax,………...Respondent Cpc, Bengaluru

Section 143(1)

seven years eight months and twenty-five days for assessment year 2014-15. The assessee also filed a petition for condonation of delay. After considering the written submission of the assessee, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the condonation petition filed by the assessee saying that –“after 2019, his period ... assessee, we find that the assessee has not challenged the orders passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) with respect of the condonation of delay. Therefore, it remained unchallenged. However, in view of the interest of justice, we have considered the reasons mentioned in the condonation petitions, which were filed before

Tirupati Iron India Pvt.Ltd, Kabadkahana vs. DCIT-4(1), Bittan Market

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 368/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanitirupati Iron India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit -4(1) E-32, Liyaqat Market, Bittan Market Vs. New Kabadkhana Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabct6665J Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ar Shri Sanjeev H. Bhagat, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)

Delhi, for A.Y.2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 67 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is also supported by an affidavit. ITANo.368/Ind/2023 Tirupati Iron India Pvt. Ltd. 2.1 We have heard Ld. AR as well ... carefully perused the contents of the application for condonation of delay as well as the affidavit filed by the assessee. The assessee has explained cause of delay as the impugned order of the CIT(A) come to the knowledge of the assessee only when giving effective order

Shri Madvirashiv Shivogimandir Samsthe Shivogimandir, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1, Kalaburagi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1402/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Ashok A. Kulkarni, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 154Section 250

lack of powers. He is of the opinion that even the AO is not competent to condone the delay in filing form 10B, therefore, the action of the AO cannot be faulted with and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3.2 Aggrieved by the order ... Copy of the CPC intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act 9. Copy of the application u/s 119(2) for condonation of delay in filing form 10B before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) dated 27.3.2023 10. Copy of the ITAT order in the case of Secondary School Education Society

Mr. Suresh Laxman Padhye, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 26 3 3 Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 4598/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kalplesh Tularkar, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. D.R
Section 250

specific question “whether there is delay in filing the appeal” answered “yes” and in subsequent column No.15 the Assessee has replied grounds for condonation of delay as “as per sheet attached”. The Assessee further drew attention of this Court to the duly sworn affidavit dated 17.05.2019 filed before

M/S. Sarah Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -23(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4237/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

deleted and / or appropriate relief.” 2. There was delay in filing the appeal by 417 days. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along with the appeal paper. The assessee being a partner of the firm submitted that as under: “Your appellant could not file the appeal against ... 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

Vasudha Premkumar Sharma, Mumbai vs. AO, Delhi

In the result, application for condonation of delay in filing appeal and appeal of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn being infructuous

ITA 3304/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarvasudha Premkumar Vs. Ao Sharma Ward – 59(2), 191/2B, Windermere, Delhi – 110 002 Off Link Road, Oshiwara, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 053 Pan : Amfps 0916 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Chhajed, C.A. Respondent By Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

Section 271(1)(c)

Date of Hearing 12.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.12.2024 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: 1. The application for condonation of delay in filing appeal with appeal filed by assessee is against the order dated 23.09.2023 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred ... submission. 4. From examination of record in light of above submissions, it is crystal clear that assessee/appellant submitted an application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal and appeal containing copy of order dated 23.09.2023 by NFAC and penalty order under section 271(1)(c) dated 04.09.2021. Appellant/assessee

Bucher Hydraulics Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 799/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmabucher Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Plot No. 6, Sector-5, Imt Circle-4(2), Manesar, Gurugaon, New Delhi Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecs5991H

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mathew Jacob, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 4Section 91(1)Section 91(4)

assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shall place such

Sudeshna Devi, Shamli vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Shamli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1080/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1080/िद"ी/2018 (िन.व. 2010-11) Smt. Sudeshna Devi, C/O Prem Prakash, 183/2 North Civil Lines, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh-251001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Gtmps-4972-N बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Ward 1(5), Shamli, Uttar Pradesh अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Gaurav Sachdeva, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/12/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 12/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 22.11.2017, For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Counsel For The Assessee Stated At Bar That The Assessee Has Opted To Settle The Issue In Appeal Under Vsvs 2024. He Placed On Record Copy Of Form No. 1 Filed Under The Scheme & Submitted That Form No. 2 From The Department Is Awaited. He Prayed For Withdrawing The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Is Allowed To Withdraw The Appeal As Prayed For.

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sachdeva, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR

appeal in the event assessee’s declaration made under VSVS is not accepted, the Registry shall not insist for filing of application for condonation of delay, if the Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order is filed beyond time on account of delay in communication of outcome under VSVS

Alok Dadu, Modi Nagar vs. Addljcit(A)-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 613/LKW/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2022-23 Alok Dadu V. The Ito-2(4) H. No.310, Gali No.3 Pilibhit Bharampuri Modi Nagar Tan/Pan:Acdod4702B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(c)

delay of 292 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He submitted that the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit, stating therein that the assessee had met with a major accident which effected his ability to manage the responsibilities. Therefore ... view of the prayer made by the Assessee, duly supported by Affidavit and no objection by the Ld. Sr. D.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 8. The Ld. A.R. submitted before us that due to typing mistake, the amount

A.K.A. Developers Pvt.Ltd., Kanpur vs. ITO Ward-6(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as un-admitted

ITA 294/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 A.K.A. Developers Pvt. Ltd. V. The Ito 77, Govt. Industrial Estate Ward 6(1) Kalpi Road Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aahca6235 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

notice of the Bench that there is a delay of 2229 days in filing of the appeal and no application for condonation of delay, in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, has been filed by the assessee. Further, a perusal of record shows that earlier this appeal was fixed

Rajeshbhai Mohanbhai Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the levy of costs

ITA 1098/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1097/Ahd/2024 & 1098/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Rajeshbhai Mohanbhai Prajapati The Ito बनाम/ D-Ff 108 Pushp Business Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Campus Ahmedabad Vastral Cross Roads Sp Ring Road, Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 445 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atspp 0059 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jignesh Shah, Adv. Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Shah, AdvFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

necessary documentation and additional evidence to support its case, demonstrating a sincere intention to pursue the appeal. The Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the condonation of delay, arguing that the assessee's behaviour reflects gross negligence and in difference and the assessee failed to act diligently, especially considering the magnitude ... Nos.1097 & 1098/Ahd/2024 Rajeshbhai Mohanbhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 and personal difficulties, as explained in the affidavit filed for condonation of delay. The AR argued that the failure to respond to notices issued by the AO and CIT(A) was unintentional and caused by genuine difficulties

Rajeshbhai Mohanbhai Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the levy of costs

ITA 1097/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1097/Ahd/2024 & 1098/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Rajeshbhai Mohanbhai Prajapati The Ito बनाम/ D-Ff 108 Pushp Business Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Campus Ahmedabad Vastral Cross Roads Sp Ring Road, Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 445 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atspp 0059 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jignesh Shah, Adv. Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Shah, AdvFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

necessary documentation and additional evidence to support its case, demonstrating a sincere intention to pursue the appeal. The Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the condonation of delay, arguing that the assessee's behaviour reflects gross negligence and in difference and the assessee failed to act diligently, especially considering the magnitude ... Nos.1097 & 1098/Ahd/2024 Rajeshbhai Mohanbhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 and personal difficulties, as explained in the affidavit filed for condonation of delay. The AR argued that the failure to respond to notices issued by the AO and CIT(A) was unintentional and caused by genuine difficulties

M/S. Mfar Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2089/BANG/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

courts can exercise their discretion leniently vis-à-vis ITA Nos.1670&2089/Bang/2024 M/s. MFAR Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 9 of 18 condoning the delay. Hon’ble Bombay High Court further held that cases where there is a delay of more than 365 days such cases fall in the category ... inordinate delay and in such cases, the courts must not act leniently, rather act strictly for condoning the delay. The observations of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Ornate Traders is reproduced hereunder: - “The very scheme of proper administration of justice pre- supposes expediency in disposal

M/S. Mfar Holdings Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1670/BANG/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

courts can exercise their discretion leniently vis-à-vis ITA Nos.1670&2089/Bang/2024 M/s. MFAR Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 9 of 18 condoning the delay. Hon’ble Bombay High Court further held that cases where there is a delay of more than 365 days such cases fall in the category ... inordinate delay and in such cases, the courts must not act leniently, rather act strictly for condoning the delay. The observations of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Ornate Traders is reproduced hereunder: - “The very scheme of proper administration of justice pre- supposes expediency in disposal

Sarosh Abdul Majid Zamindar, Bhiwandi vs. Assessing Officer Ward 1(4), Kalyan

ITA 5158/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 144ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

consultant. 3. On the contrary the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee. 4. The cause/reason shown by the Assessee for condonation of delay is attributable to the mistake of the erstwhile tax consultant, which is not appreciable and therefore the same cannot be entertained. However, considering the peculiar ... erstwhile tax consultant and the Assessee cannot be ruled out under the peculiar facts and circumstances, hence this Court is inclined to condone the delay, however, subject to deposit of Rs.5,000/- in the Revenue Department under “other heads” and without seeking any exemption/disallowance of the same, but within

Hybrid Financial Services Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3093/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K. Chandramouli, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

date. The present appeal has been filed before the Mumbai Bench of ITAT on 06.06.2024. Assessee has placed on record a petition for condonation of delay, wherein it is stated that initially assessee had filed the appeal before the Chennai Bench of ITAT, under a bonafide belief that the appeal ... While dismissing, the Coordinate Bench granted liberty to the assessee to file fresh appeal before the ITAT, Mumbai Bench along with petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the said appeal, since, assessee had filed the appeal before it under a bonafide belief that it was maintainable before the ITAT

DCIT-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Carron Investment Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4187/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Gautam ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Krishnakumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 292B

days in filing the present appeal by the Revenue is condoned in view of the submissions made in the application seeking condonation of delay. 3. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Nishat Husseianli Vazir, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Pune

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

ITA 604/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Pune10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.604/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nishat Husseianli Vazir, Vs. Ito, Ward-7(1), Pune. 7 M.G. Road, 36, Wonderland Camp, Pune- 411001. Pan : Adapv3432C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kishor B. Phadke : Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.07.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs. 2,06,83,929/- Instead Of Return Income Of Rs. 5,08,729/-. 2. The Appellant Contends That Unfortunately, The Appellant Failed To Check The Itba Portal & Learn About The Opportunities Of Hearing /Making Submission Before It Authorities & Neither Got Any Email Communication From The Office Of Learned Cit(A). Further, The Appellant Contends That Appellant Is Certainly Keen To Pursue The Matter On Merits & Facts.

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69

purchase of immovable property.” 4. It is found that the instant appeal is filed with the delay of 194 days. The application for condonation of delay of 194 days in filing of this appeal has been filed online by the assessee. It was stated in the application that the assessee ... raise any serious objection to the request of the assessee. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay and accordingly, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits of the case. 5. Facts

Karikkakom Sree Chamundi Temple Trust, Trivandrum vs. The CIT Exemptions, Kochi

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

ITA 446/COCH/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Dec 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Alan Dev, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 12A

No.ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2022-23/1051172853(1). 3. There is a delay of 23 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit of the Secretary of the assessee- trust explaining the delay(s). Therefore, relying on the decision in the case of Collector