← 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

Satish Bandapelly, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1001/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.998 To 1001/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Satish Bandapelly Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 15 (1) Pan:Adxpb2169D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 4 Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Dated 5/8/2024 & 17/08/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Arising From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The I.T. Act, 1961 & Penalty Orders Passed U/S 271Aac(1), 271B & 271F Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Respectively For The A.Y 2017-18. Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala,DR
Section 147Section 271A

appeals of the assessee filed against the assessment order as well as respective penalty orders on the ground of limitation by declining the condonation of delay in filing the appeals. He has pointed out that there was a delay of 551 days in filing the appeals before the learned ... about these orders and could not file appeal before the learned CIT (A) within the period of limitation. He has filed petition for condonation of delay before the Tribunal which are supported by affidavits of the assessee. Thus, the learned AR has pleaded that the delay in filing the appeals

Satish Bandapelly, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1000/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.998 To 1001/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Satish Bandapelly Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 15 (1) Pan:Adxpb2169D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 4 Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Dated 5/8/2024 & 17/08/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Arising From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The I.T. Act, 1961 & Penalty Orders Passed U/S 271Aac(1), 271B & 271F Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Respectively For The A.Y 2017-18. Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala,DR
Section 147Section 271A

appeals of the assessee filed against the assessment order as well as respective penalty orders on the ground of limitation by declining the condonation of delay in filing the appeals. He has pointed out that there was a delay of 551 days in filing the appeals before the learned ... about these orders and could not file appeal before the learned CIT (A) within the period of limitation. He has filed petition for condonation of delay before the Tribunal which are supported by affidavits of the assessee. Thus, the learned AR has pleaded that the delay in filing the appeals

The Beekeepers Co-Operative Society Limtied, Sakaleshapura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as indicated above

ITA 2040/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Pranav Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for revenue
Section 10Section 143(1)

matter earlier, the inadvertent delay has occured. 3. Ld. D.R. could not seriously objected to the prayer of the assessee vis- à-vis condonation of delay. The Beekeepers Co-operative Society Ltd., Hassan Page 2 of 4 4. Considering the smallness of the delay of 6 days, we hereby condone

Datta Krupa Education Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

ITA 5152/MUM/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Gaushala and Naturopathy Shiksha Society (supra): “9. By the notification dated 17.07.2022, the Commissioner of Income Tax is authorized to admit application for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 9A and Form No. 10 for assessment year of 2018-19 or for any subsequent assessment years, where there

Vision India Colonizers Private Limited, Mohali vs. ITO, Ward 6(4), Mohali

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 90/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. The appeal is barred by 970 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been pleaded that the delay period include the Covid 19 Pandemic period also. It has also been pleaded that

Shreenathji Associates, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 594/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.592, 593 & 594/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014-15 Respectively Shreenathji Associates The Ito बनाम/ Sb-1, Shreeji Avenue, W#Ard-1(2)(4) V/S. 11, Sampatrao Colony Vadodara – 390 007 Jetalpur Road Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abufs 4107 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Arise From The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Dated 11/05/2023, 30/11/2023 & 02/02/2024 Respectively For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 (Both Under Original & Reassessment Proceedings). Since The Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Common, They Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

Original Assessment) were filed with delay of 266 days and 63 days, respectively. The assessee submitted separate applications for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for the delay in filing these appeals. In the said applications, the assessee attributed the delays to the negligence of the previous Authorized Representative ... applications seeking condonation of the delays. 5.1. Considering the reasons provided in the applications, the Departmental Representative (DR) did not object to the condonation of delay. We have carefully examined the applications and observed that while the reasons for the delay appear genuine, the assessee has a duty to actively

Shreenathji Associates, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 593/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.592, 593 & 594/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014-15 Respectively Shreenathji Associates The Ito बनाम/ Sb-1, Shreeji Avenue, W#Ard-1(2)(4) V/S. 11, Sampatrao Colony Vadodara – 390 007 Jetalpur Road Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abufs 4107 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Arise From The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Dated 11/05/2023, 30/11/2023 & 02/02/2024 Respectively For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 (Both Under Original & Reassessment Proceedings). Since The Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Common, They Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

Original Assessment) were filed with delay of 266 days and 63 days, respectively. The assessee submitted separate applications for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for the delay in filing these appeals. In the said applications, the assessee attributed the delays to the negligence of the previous Authorized Representative ... applications seeking condonation of the delays. 5.1. Considering the reasons provided in the applications, the Departmental Representative (DR) did not object to the condonation of delay. We have carefully examined the applications and observed that while the reasons for the delay appear genuine, the assessee has a duty to actively

Shreenathji Associates, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 592/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.592, 593 & 594/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014-15 Respectively Shreenathji Associates The Ito बनाम/ Sb-1, Shreeji Avenue, W#Ard-1(2)(4) V/S. 11, Sampatrao Colony Vadodara – 390 007 Jetalpur Road Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abufs 4107 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Arise From The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Dated 11/05/2023, 30/11/2023 & 02/02/2024 Respectively For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 (Both Under Original & Reassessment Proceedings). Since The Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Common, They Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

Original Assessment) were filed with delay of 266 days and 63 days, respectively. The assessee submitted separate applications for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for the delay in filing these appeals. In the said applications, the assessee attributed the delays to the negligence of the previous Authorized Representative ... applications seeking condonation of the delays. 5.1. Considering the reasons provided in the applications, the Departmental Representative (DR) did not object to the condonation of delay. We have carefully examined the applications and observed that while the reasons for the delay appear genuine, the assessee has a duty to actively

Otari World Confederation, Nashik, Maharashtra vs. Exemption Ward 1(1), Nashik, Maharashtra

ITA 1735/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K P Dewani (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 8Section 80G

Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) requested the Bench to condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. Learned DR on the other hand strongly opposed condonation applications filed by the assessee. 4. We have heard ... rival arguments made by both the sides on the issue of condonation of delay in filing of the above appeals. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji (supra) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against

Arsa Glee Foundation, Nashik, Maharashtra vs. Exemption Ward 1(1), Nashik, Maharashtra

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 1734/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K P Dewani (ThroughFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 8Section 80G

Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) requested the Bench to condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. Learned DR on the other hand strongly opposed condonation applications filed by the assessee. 4. We have heard ... rival arguments made by both the sides on the issue of condonation of delay in filing of the above appeals. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji (supra) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against

Otari World Confederation, Nashik, Maharashtra vs. Exemption Ward 1(1), Nashik, Maharashtra

ITA 1722/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K P Dewani (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 8Section 80G

Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) requested the Bench to condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. Learned DR on the other hand strongly opposed condonation applications filed by the assessee. 4. We have heard ... rival arguments made by both the sides on the issue of condonation of delay in filing of the above appeals. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji (supra) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against

Arsa Glee Foundation, Nashik, Maharashtra vs. Exemption Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 1721/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K P Dewani (ThroughFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 8Section 80G

Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) requested the Bench to condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. Learned DR on the other hand strongly opposed condonation applications filed by the assessee. 4. We have heard ... rival arguments made by both the sides on the issue of condonation of delay in filing of the above appeals. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji (supra) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against

Tirupati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Hipparga Kajal vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 1681/PUN/2024[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2024

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil MuthaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

found that the appeal is filed belatedly. Ld. AR appearing for the assessee furnished application for condonation of delay along with affidavit. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay & accordingly hold that the 2 assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for not filing

Cube Infrastructure Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward-9(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 746/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.746/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Cube Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ……..……………………....Appellant 425, Dum Dum Park, Kolkata, W.B. – 700055. [Pan: Aadcc3318D] Vs. Ito, Ward-9(3), Kolkata…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 04, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.02.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-9, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Time Of Hearing, No One Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Although Notices Were Served On Time To Time From The Registry To The Assessee Through Post On 22.08.24, 3.12.2024. As All Options Have Gone In Vain Since No One Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee On The Consecutive Dates, Under Such Situation, We Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Inordinate Delay For Adjudication. We, Therefore, Feel It Necessary To Decide This Appeal On The Basis Of Material Available On Record & With The Assistance Of The Ld. Dr.

Section 249(3)Section 250

materials available on record, find that the appeal of the assessee was simply dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground of condonation of delay of 229 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) without looking into merits of the case and also the case ... their case. Moreover, natural justice demands that cases be decided on merits as prescribed u/s 249(3) of the Act which allows the condonation of delay if sufficient cause is explained. Deciding the appeal without going into the merit of the case is led to undue hardship

Manas, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1357/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1354 To 1357/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2022-23 Manas……….…….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant 14, Rbi Green Wood Nook, 369/2, Purbachal, Kalitala Road, Kolkata – 700078. [Pan: Aabam3353Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Exemption, Kolkata............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 04, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Four Assessment Years I.E 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Arise From Common Set Of Facts & Related To Same Party, Therefore, These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & Clarity. Since The Grounds In All Appeals Are Identical, Except Change Of Figures, The First Appeal Being Ita No.1354/Kol/2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Taken As Lead Case.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed to the condonation of delay and argued that the assessee did not demonstrate any reasonable cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. He, therefore, prayed that

Manas, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 1356/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1354 To 1357/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2022-23 Manas……….…….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant 14, Rbi Green Wood Nook, 369/2, Purbachal, Kalitala Road, Kolkata – 700078. [Pan: Aabam3353Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Exemption, Kolkata............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 04, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Four Assessment Years I.E 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Arise From Common Set Of Facts & Related To Same Party, Therefore, These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & Clarity. Since The Grounds In All Appeals Are Identical, Except Change Of Figures, The First Appeal Being Ita No.1354/Kol/2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Taken As Lead Case.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed to the condonation of delay and argued that the assessee did not demonstrate any reasonable cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. He, therefore, prayed that

Manas, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1355/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1354 To 1357/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2022-23 Manas……….…….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant 14, Rbi Green Wood Nook, 369/2, Purbachal, Kalitala Road, Kolkata – 700078. [Pan: Aabam3353Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Exemption, Kolkata............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 04, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Four Assessment Years I.E 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Arise From Common Set Of Facts & Related To Same Party, Therefore, These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & Clarity. Since The Grounds In All Appeals Are Identical, Except Change Of Figures, The First Appeal Being Ita No.1354/Kol/2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Taken As Lead Case.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed to the condonation of delay and argued that the assessee did not demonstrate any reasonable cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. He, therefore, prayed that

Manas, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 1354/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.1354 To 1357/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2022-23 Manas……….…….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant 14, Rbi Green Wood Nook, 369/2, Purbachal, Kalitala Road, Kolkata – 700078. [Pan: Aabam3353Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Exemption, Kolkata............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 04, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Four Assessment Years I.E 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Arise From Common Set Of Facts & Related To Same Party, Therefore, These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & Clarity. Since The Grounds In All Appeals Are Identical, Except Change Of Figures, The First Appeal Being Ita No.1354/Kol/2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Taken As Lead Case.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed to the condonation of delay and argued that the assessee did not demonstrate any reasonable cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. He, therefore, prayed that

Maynagori C S Shop, Maynaguri vs. CIT Appeals, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre

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

ITA 1152/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 928/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Maynagori C.S. Shop,…………………………....Appellant Thana Road, Maynaguri, Jalpaiguri-735224, West Bengal [Pan: Aaofm3110D] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,….....Respondent Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri, C.R. Building, Race Course Road, Naya Basti, Jalpaiguri-735101, West Bengal -A N D- I.T.A. No. 1152/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Maynagori C.S. Shop,…………………………....Appellant Thana Road, Maynaguri, Jalpaiguri-735224, West Bengal [Pan: Aaofm3110D] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),…..Respondent Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Appearances By: Shri R.K. Saha, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri A. Kundu, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue 1 & Maynagori C.S. Shop

Section 271(1)(c)

take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 928/KOL/2023. 3. The appeal is time barred by 14 days. Separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the submission made in the application, we condone the delay of 14 days and admit the appeal. 4. At the outset

Maynagori C S Shop, Maynaguri vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri

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

ITA 928/KOL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 928/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Maynagori C.S. Shop,…………………………....Appellant Thana Road, Maynaguri, Jalpaiguri-735224, West Bengal [Pan: Aaofm3110D] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,….....Respondent Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri, C.R. Building, Race Course Road, Naya Basti, Jalpaiguri-735101, West Bengal -A N D- I.T.A. No. 1152/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Maynagori C.S. Shop,…………………………....Appellant Thana Road, Maynaguri, Jalpaiguri-735224, West Bengal [Pan: Aaofm3110D] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),…..Respondent Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Appearances By: Shri R.K. Saha, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri A. Kundu, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue 1 & Maynagori C.S. Shop

Section 271(1)(c)

take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 928/KOL/2023. 3. The appeal is time barred by 14 days. Separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the submission made in the application, we condone the delay of 14 days and admit the appeal. 4. At the outset