← 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

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 7265/MUM/2025[AY 2025-26 to AY 2029-30]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

Balvantrai Amrutbhai Vyas, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2(1)(1), Rajkot.

Appeal is dismissed as “not pressed

ITA 238/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Ms. Devina Patel, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69A

outset, that the appeal filed late by 427 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The relevant contention of the application for delay, is as under “That the impugned order u/s 250 of the Act dated ... consultant. However, since there was delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) of 111 days, due to reasons mentioned in the condonation of delay petition before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) did not admit my appeal and had dismissed my appeal in limine by not considering

Vijay Tejbahadur Singh Legal Representative for Rekha Vijaykumar Singh, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Bharuch

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

ITA 1019/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 250

appreciate that assessee has filed statement of facts, grounds of appeal, miscellaneous application for production of additional evidence and miscellaneous application for condonation of delay for 2140 days of delay and all such filing has been ignored and no appellate order has been passed on merit as well as request

Madhu Devi, Nawada vs. ITO, Ward 2 (3), Biharsharif, Patna

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

ITA 516/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 148ASection 250

Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 329 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the assessee had participated in the assessment proceedings and had also submitted the documents along with the audit report on Form ... Assessment Year: 2014-15 Madhu Devi. sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that

Income Tax Officer, Katihar vs. Birendra Kumar Sancheti, Katihar

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

ITA 405/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 96 days. The Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons as under: “In the case, Centralised Scrutiny report was initiated after receipt of order u/s 250 and initially the same was submitted with ... Revenue had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “i. Whether

Rajesh Kumar, East Champaran vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 266/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 364 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the assessee was disturbed and after obtaining the record from the previous counsel, necessary details could be made available and prepared for filing ... cause for the delay in filing the appeal and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that

Nellore Pinakini Lions Trust, Nellore vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Guntur

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

ITA 751/VIZ/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.751/Viz./2025 Assessment Year 2023-2024 Nellore Pinakini Lions The Income Tax Officer, Trust, Nellore. Exemption Ward, Vs. Pin – 524 001. Guntur. Andhra Pradesh Pan Aadtn0776D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Dr. Abhishek, Ca [Hybrid] राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Dr. Abhishek, CA [Hybrid]For Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 115TSection 12ASection 143(3)

order of Learned AO/CIT(A) is bad in law, void and ought to be quashed. ii. The Appellant had applied for condonation of delay petition which was granted by the Hon'ble CIT(E) vide order dated 16.09.2025. iii. The Learned AO/CIT(A) ought to have noted that the original

Pramila Dhadse, Betul vs. ITO, Betul

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 559/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshipramila Dhadse, Ito, Betul बनाम/ 284/34-5 Civil Lines, Betul Vs. Bhainsdehi, Betul, M.P. Betul. (Pan:Cfqpd5850Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Shelly Maheshwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

appellant assessee during the assessment proceedings and during the Appellate proceedings, non- seriousness shown for not filing of any application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal (delayed), non- compliance to the hearing notice issued and not filing any submissions on merits or evidences to prove

Hari Singh, Raisen vs. ITO Raisen, Raisen

In the result “Impugned order” is set aside as and by way

ITA 536/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshihari Singh, Ito, Raisen बनाम/ S/O Sh. Dhara Singh, 86,Vill- Vs. Semri Khurd, Tehsil- Sultanpur, Raisen,Bhopal, Mp (Pan: Aiaps1986M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 148Section 148(2)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

that the assessee has made a request for condonation of the delay in filling the instant second appeal. The core reason for the condonation of delay is that the assessee was suffering from cancer & that his earlier coulsel at the first appellate stage was not cooperative despite the assessee being ... revenue under these the facts & circumstances stated that the delay be condoned as the department has no objection. Accordingly after perusing the condonation of delay application dated 11.06.2025 & so also Page 11 of 14 Hari Singh ITA No. 536/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2012-13 after perusing the affidavit dated 09.06.2025 of the assessee

Prem Prakash Narang (HUF), Shahjahanpur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(5), Shahjahanpur

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

ITA 772/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Prem Prakash Narang (Huf) V. Income Tax Officer-1(5) Krishna Nagar Colony, Moh Shahjahanpur-242001. Chamkani Post Sadar, Shahjahanpur-242001. Pan:Aanhp4922P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 01 2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 01 2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 69A

grounds of appeal with permission.” 2. The present appeal is barred by limitation by 342 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit. The Ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the application for condonation of delay and relied

Rampal, Sitapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Sitapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 265/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President)

For Appellant: Shri Chandra Prakash Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 3

within time ie. within 30 days from the date of service of order i.e.07/08/2023, hence there is no question of praying for condonation of delay.” 2. The assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal challenging the impugned assessment order. Although the grounds of appeal are argumentative in nature, however ... facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that the assessee has made out a case for condonation of delay. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for challenging the validity of the assessment order is condoned. It is contended

Vasrambhai Rabari Legal Heir of Late Dhulabhai F. Rabari, Bamangam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

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

ITA 343/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.343/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vasrambhai Rabari Legal Heir The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Of Late Dhulabhai F. Rabari Ward-3(1)(4) V/S. Rabari Falia Vadodara – 390 007 Bamangam, Karjan Vadodara – 391 210 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bjdpr 6785 E (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250

Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The appeal is time-barred by 44 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been stated that the Vasrambhai Rabari Legal Heir of Late Dhulabhai F. Rabari vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2013-14 assessee has been pursuing

Vishva Kalyan Foundation, Surendranagar vs. ITO Ward 2 Exempetion Ahmedabad, Ahmedaabd

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1992/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhkhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, SR-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154

assessee, after obtaining professional advice, filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on 09-03-2025 along with an Affidavit seeking condonation of delay of about 1021 days. 5. The learned CIT(Appeals), after considering the affidavit and submissions on the issue of limitation, declined to condone ... strictly applied and that mere assertions of ignorance of law cannot constitute sufficient cause. On this reasoning, CIT(Appeals) did not condoned the delay, and the appeal and was dismissed without adjudicating the issues on merits. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed

Thuse Elektronics Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Pune

In the result, ITA No.2544/PUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2544/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2544 & 1890/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Thuse Elektronics Pvt. Ltd., V Dcit, Circle-7, Plot No.33A, Sector -7, S Pune. Pcntda, Bhosari, Pune – 411003, Maharashtra. Pan: Aaact6285F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 & A.Y.2013-14 Dated 23.09.2025 & 09.06.2025 Respectively Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, Dated 24.03.2013 & 26.09.2014

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 250

Rs.42,55,991 as computed by the learned AO. 3. Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay of 4404 days in filing appeal alleging that appellant could not demonstrate sufficient cause in spite of establishing that the said delay had caused because ... cause for delay. 7) In these facts, lets understand the principles explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court for condonation of delay. 8) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others Civil Appeal Nos.8183-8184

Latthe Education Societys Employees Co Operative Credit Soc Ltd, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Sangli

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

ITA 2331/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2331/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Latthe Education Society Vs. Assessment Unit, Employees Co-Operative Income Tax Department. Credit Soc. Ltd., Gajanan Complex, G. A. College Of Commerce, Sangli- 416416. Pan : Aaaal0118K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R. Y. Balawade Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao Of Denying Deduction Under Section 80P In Respect Interest Earned By The Appellant Society On Deposits With Other Co-Operative Banks, Not Accepting The Submission Of The Appellant In This Respect.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Y. Balawade
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

/NFAC. Since the appeal was furnished belatedly i.e. with a delay of 14 days, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 6. When the appeal was called for hearing ... perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal in limine solely on the ground of 14 days delay. We further find that it was contended before Ld. CIT(A)NFAC

Arpita Venkatesh Choulwar, Kothrud Pune vs. ITO WD-3, Pune

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

ITA 2306/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Thakur (Virtual)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the 2 prescribed time limit. After hearing ... condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “The appellant respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal, which are taken without prejudice to one another: On facts and in law: I. Ex-parte disposal without considering the submissions

Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur vs. Sarvoday Shikshan Sanstha, Sangli

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 2265/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2265/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Sarvoday Shikshan Sanstha, Kolhapur A/P Umadi Tal Jath, Vs. Dist. Sangli-416413 Pan : Aaets2962D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Mrs M.N. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

with 1st Proviso to Rule 12(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, from the records, I find that the application for condonation of delay in submission of Form 10B for A.Y. 2018-19 has been allowed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act by the Principal Chief

Thuse Elektronics Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Pune

In the result, ITA No.2544/PUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1890/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2544 & 1890/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Thuse Elektronics Pvt. Ltd., V Dcit, Circle-7, Plot No.33A, Sector -7, S Pune. Pcntda, Bhosari, Pune – 411003, Maharashtra. Pan: Aaact6285F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 & A.Y.2013-14 Dated 23.09.2025 & 09.06.2025 Respectively Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, Dated 24.03.2013 & 26.09.2014

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 250

Rs.42,55,991 as computed by the learned AO. 3. Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay of 4404 days in filing appeal alleging that appellant could not demonstrate sufficient cause in spite of establishing that the said delay had caused because ... cause for delay. 7) In these facts, lets understand the principles explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court for condonation of delay. 8) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others Civil Appeal Nos.8183-8184

Vijaymala Vilas Kalokhe, Pune vs. ITO Ward-10(1), Pune

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

ITA 1666/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vijaymala Vilas Kalokhe, Ito, Ward-10(1), Pune Aditya Row House, Lane No. 2, Opp. Patel Garden, Sr. No. 8/2A, Vs. Juni Sangavi, Maharashtra-411027 Pan : Asepk8161G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 28-01-2026 Date Of 30-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.06.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2013-14. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. He Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,21,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) After Following The Mandate Procedure As Laid Down Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Act. Accordingly, Statutory Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act & Show Cause Letter(S) Were Issued To The Assessee From Time To Time. However, The Assessee Failed To File Any Response To The Said Notice(S) Which Constrained The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) To Pass An Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 Of The Act Based On The Material Available On Record. The Ld. Ao Proceeded To Complete The Assessment On Total Income Of Rs.2,66,70,989/-U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.2,63,83,209/- On Account Of Undisclosed Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) By Observing As Under : “5.1. On-Going Through The Information Available On Record & In View Of The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Dated 21.07.2022, It Is Noticed That 2

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50C

substantiate its case before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. He, therefore, requested that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC may be directed to condone the delay and adjudicate the issue afresh on merits after allowing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. The Ld. DR had no objection ... assessee by them. We find that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non- condonation of delay of 136 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for the reason that such delay in its opinion do not constitute a sufficient

Jeevandhara Coop Credit Soc Ltd, Pune vs. Pne W- 56 (2), Pune

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

ITA 1660/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Y. Balawade
Section 143(3)Section 80P

There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the 2 prescribed time limit. After hearing ... condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a credit co- operative society duly registered under Maharashtra State Co- operative Societies Act and has furnished return of income on 14.01.2021 declaring total income of Rs.Nil after claiming