← 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

Jivrajbhai Ramabhai Chaudhary, Banaskantha vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Palanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1024/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year :2017-18 Jivarajbhai Ramabhai Chaudhary Income Tax Officer Patel Vas, Village : Hadta, Jadiya Vs Ward-3 Tal. Dhanera Palanpur. Dist: Banaskantha Gujarat. Pan : Azzpp 6148 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Jimi Patel, Ar Assessee By : Ms.Neeju Gupta, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Ms.Neeju Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

assessee has been filed late by 63 days before the Tribunal. To explain the delay, the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay in the form of affidavit sworn in by the assessee, Shri Jivarajbhai Ramabhai Chaudhary. In the application, the assessee submitted that the appellate order received from ... mala fide intention can be attributed to the assessee, and in the interest of fairness and justice, I am inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned, and I proceed to dispose of the appeal on its merits. 4. Taking up now the appeal of the assessee

Textile Development Foundation, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 887/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

mandatory on the part of the appellant to file the Form No.10B in due time or get a condonation of delay in filing the Form 10B from the CIT (Exemptions). Keeping in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the AO has rightly denied the allowing exemption ... affidavit explaining the reasons of delay in filing of this appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay which is duly supported by an affidavit. Ld. DR raised no serious objection against the delay condonation request made by the assessee. Accordingly, the delay

Kedar Associates, Pune vs. TDS Ward 2, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1533/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1530 To 1533/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kedar Associates, Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-2, Pune. 105A Narayan Peth Off Lakmi Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aabfk6598A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Vaze Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 13.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. At The Outset, We Find That There Is Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. Ld. Ar Furnished An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons Of Delay In Filing Of These Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Duly Supported By An Affidavit. Ld. Dr Raised No Serious Objection Against The Delay Condonation Request Made By The Assessee. Accordingly, The Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals Is Condoned & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1530/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 (Quarter 2) For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Vaze
Section 200ASection 234E

affidavit explaining the reasons of delay in filing of these appeals. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay which is duly supported by an affidavit. Ld. DR raised no serious objection against the delay condonation request made by the assessee. Accordingly, the delay ... justification report an appeal was filed belatedly before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 7. After considering the reply, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone the delay of 2965 days in filing of first appeal and dismissed the appeal without admitting the same. Without prejudice to above, it was also observed

Kedar Associates, Pune vs. TDS Ward 2 Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1532/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1530 To 1533/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kedar Associates, Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-2, Pune. 105A Narayan Peth Off Lakmi Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aabfk6598A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Vaze Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 13.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. At The Outset, We Find That There Is Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. Ld. Ar Furnished An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons Of Delay In Filing Of These Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Duly Supported By An Affidavit. Ld. Dr Raised No Serious Objection Against The Delay Condonation Request Made By The Assessee. Accordingly, The Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals Is Condoned & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1530/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 (Quarter 2) For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Vaze
Section 200ASection 234E

affidavit explaining the reasons of delay in filing of these appeals. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay which is duly supported by an affidavit. Ld. DR raised no serious objection against the delay condonation request made by the assessee. Accordingly, the delay ... justification report an appeal was filed belatedly before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 7. After considering the reply, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone the delay of 2965 days in filing of first appeal and dismissed the appeal without admitting the same. Without prejudice to above, it was also observed

Kedar Associates, Pune vs. TDS Ward 2, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1531/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1530 To 1533/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kedar Associates, Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-2, Pune. 105A Narayan Peth Off Lakmi Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aabfk6598A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Vaze Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 13.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. At The Outset, We Find That There Is Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. Ld. Ar Furnished An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons Of Delay In Filing Of These Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Duly Supported By An Affidavit. Ld. Dr Raised No Serious Objection Against The Delay Condonation Request Made By The Assessee. Accordingly, The Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals Is Condoned & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1530/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 (Quarter 2) For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Vaze
Section 200ASection 234E

affidavit explaining the reasons of delay in filing of these appeals. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay which is duly supported by an affidavit. Ld. DR raised no serious objection against the delay condonation request made by the assessee. Accordingly, the delay ... justification report an appeal was filed belatedly before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 7. After considering the reply, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone the delay of 2965 days in filing of first appeal and dismissed the appeal without admitting the same. Without prejudice to above, it was also observed

Kedar Associates, Pune vs. TDS Ward 2, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1530/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1530 To 1533/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kedar Associates, Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-2, Pune. 105A Narayan Peth Off Lakmi Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aabfk6598A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Vaze Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 13.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. At The Outset, We Find That There Is Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. Ld. Ar Furnished An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons Of Delay In Filing Of These Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Duly Supported By An Affidavit. Ld. Dr Raised No Serious Objection Against The Delay Condonation Request Made By The Assessee. Accordingly, The Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals Is Condoned & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1530/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 (Quarter 2) For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Vaze
Section 200ASection 234E

affidavit explaining the reasons of delay in filing of these appeals. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay which is duly supported by an affidavit. Ld. DR raised no serious objection against the delay condonation request made by the assessee. Accordingly, the delay ... justification report an appeal was filed belatedly before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 7. After considering the reply, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC refused to condone the delay of 2965 days in filing of first appeal and dismissed the appeal without admitting the same. Without prejudice to above, it was also observed

Anand Dham Foundation, Ahmednagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Pune

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1129/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

days. The assessee has filed an application along with a sworn affidavit of the President of the assessee trust seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal(s) stating therein the reasons for delay as under : “3. On receipt of order, we have approached our consultant and requested ... respected CIT (Exemption), Pune rejecting the approval u/s 80G, which may please be condoned.” 2.1 The Ld. DR opposed the application for condonation of delay contending that there was no sufficient cause that has been demonstrated by the assessee for the said delay. 3. After hearing both the sides

Anand Dham Foundation, Ahmednagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. Exemption, Pune

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1128/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

days. The assessee has filed an application along with a sworn affidavit of the President of the assessee trust seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal(s) stating therein the reasons for delay as under : “3. On receipt of order, we have approached our consultant and requested ... respected CIT (Exemption), Pune rejecting the approval u/s 80G, which may please be condoned.” 2.1 The Ld. DR opposed the application for condonation of delay contending that there was no sufficient cause that has been demonstrated by the assessee for the said delay. 3. After hearing both the sides

D.C.Mills (Private) Limited, Alappuzha vs. Income Tax Officer, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 612/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm & Sa No. 144/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

outset we find that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 41 days. The assessee filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay on the ground that the order passed by the CIT(A) was not served physically but through e-mail which was not noticed ... interest of justice adopting a liberal view. 5. On the other hand, the learned CIT-DR has not seriously opposed the condonation of delay. 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. There is no material on record to disbelieve

Kunjumol, Trivandrum vs. ITO, Trivandrum

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

ITA 266/COCH/2024[AY 2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 144BSection 148BSection 194I

appeal was file before the CIT(A) with a delay of 122 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset, we carefully perused the order passed ... find that the CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay of 122 days by referring to various judicial precedents wherein it was held that in the absence of sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, delay need not be condoned. We are of the considered opinion that there

Kayakkodi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd No F 1481, Kayakkodi vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 251/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(1)

days in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee is dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) in limine without condoning the delay. 4. Now the assessee has come up in appeal before us. Today when the matter has been called up on one appear from ... speaking order thereon before taking any view. However, in the present case, the ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with the application for condonation of delay in a judicious manner. Further perusal of the records would show that there was reasonable was for not appearing before the CIT(A). Therefore

Ms. Annmaria Alex Anthraper, Kochi vs. ACIT (TDS), Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 178/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: ------ None ------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 201

Therefore, he prayed that the delay may be condoned. 5. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR has not seriously opposed the condonation of delay. 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. There is no material on record ... does not stands gain anything by filing the appeal belatedly. We are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for condoning the delay. Accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. We have carefully perused the orders passed

Ms. Annmaria Alex Anthraper, Kochi vs. ACIT (TDS), Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 177/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: ------ None ------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 201

Therefore, he prayed that the delay may be condoned. 5. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR has not seriously opposed the condonation of delay. 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. There is no material on record ... does not stands gain anything by filing the appeal belatedly. We are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for condoning the delay. Accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. We have carefully perused the orders passed

Bisa Neema Panchayat Bhawan Trust, M.G Road vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 480/IND/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Nov 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaa.Y. : 2023-24 Bisa Neema Panchayat Commissioner Of Income- Bhawan Trust, Tax (Exemption), बनाम/ 285, M.G. Road, Bhopal Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aactb4287E Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, C.A. & Ar Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.11.2024

Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)Section 253(5)

time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the President of assessee-trust, Shri Rajesh Kothana, has filed an affidavit and prays for condonation of delay, the same is scanned and re-produced below: Page 1 of 13 Bisa Neema Panchayat Bhawan Trust, Indore. ITA No. 480/Ind/2024 ... please be directed to grant registration u/s 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 7. Ground No. 1 is a prayer for condonation of delay which we have already dealt in foregoing part of this order. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is not pressing Ground No. 4 since

ACIT, Bhopal vs. M.P.State Co-Op. Housing Federation Ltd., Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 450/IND/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyaniand

Section 143(8)Section 158ASection 253(5)Section 80P(2)(a)

days and thus delayed by 213 days and time-barred. Ld. DR for revenue submitted that the revenue has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp. Referring to contents of same, Ld. DR submitted that there were other appeals of revenue in the case ... legal provision of section 158AB and not because of any lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive. Ld. DR prayed to condone the delay in this situation. Ld. Page 2 of 6 ACIT,1(1), Bhopal vs. M.P. State Co-op. Housing Federation, Bhopal ITA No. 450/Ind/2024

Idappadi Panchayat Union Empl. & Teachers Co-Op. Thrift & Credit Soceity Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

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

ITA 2333/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2333/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2021-22 Idappadi Panchayat Union The Income Tax Officer, Employees & Teachers Vs. Ward-1(6), Co.Operative Thrift & Credit Society Salem. Limited S 1497, Door No.3, Kannara Street, Bazaar Street, Idappadi, Salem – 637 101. [Pan: Aaabi 0120P]

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. G. Saratha, Addl. CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

disallowances u/s 80P of the Act made by AO invoking the provisions of section 80AC of the Act, even though the application for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act is pending before CBDT. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s society ... Dismissed". :- 4 -: 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing return of income u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act, which is pending before CBDT. The Ld. AR has submitted that

The Perundurai Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Erode, Erode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2139/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1898, 2137 & 2139/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017, 2020-21 & 2020-2021) The Perundurai Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Bank Limited, Ward 2(1), No.330, Bhavani Road, Erode Perundurai, Erode 638 052. [Pan: Aabat 2523R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Irs, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 8O

appeal before the CIT(A) by the Act. The ld. CIT(A) before proceeding to decide merits of the appeal, has adjudicated the condonation of delay of 1603 days. In the condonation of delay assessee submitted that it is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative credit Society and the Society ... Taxation matters of the Co-operative Societies Act. The Society identified the pending proceedings and immediately filed the Appeal and hence requested to condone the delay in filing the appeal. According to the ld.CIT(A), assessee has merely mentioned that the delay was due to Covid Pandemic-19 and there

The Perundurai Primary Agricultural Co Operative Bank Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Erode, Erode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2137/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1898, 2137 & 2139/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017, 2020-21 & 2020-2021) The Perundurai Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Bank Limited, Ward 2(1), No.330, Bhavani Road, Erode Perundurai, Erode 638 052. [Pan: Aabat 2523R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Irs, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 8O

appeal before the CIT(A) by the Act. The ld. CIT(A) before proceeding to decide merits of the appeal, has adjudicated the condonation of delay of 1603 days. In the condonation of delay assessee submitted that it is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative credit Society and the Society ... Taxation matters of the Co-operative Societies Act. The Society identified the pending proceedings and immediately filed the Appeal and hence requested to condone the delay in filing the appeal. According to the ld.CIT(A), assessee has merely mentioned that the delay was due to Covid Pandemic-19 and there

Dhanraj Kochar HUF, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle II(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1926/CHNY/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dhanraj Kochar Huf, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 33, Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax, Chennai 600 079. Central Circle – Ii(2), Chennai. [Pan: Aaahd2785H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Chennai-16, Chennai, For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of One Day. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Petition, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 17Section 54

year 2006-07. 2. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of one day. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said petition, we find the reasons stated by the assessee

Rajesh M. Bhatia (HUF), Salem vs. DCIT, Salem

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

ITA 1912/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1911 & 1912/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajesh M. Bhatia (Huf), Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 389, Trichy Main Road, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Salem 636 006. Salem. [Pan: Aachr9909R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Both Dated 13.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Relating To Quantum Addition & Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 25Section 270A

short]. 2. We find that the appeal was filed with a delay of 3 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said petition, we 2 I.T.A. Nos.1911 & 1912/Chny/24 find the reasons stated ... I.T.A. No. 1912/Chny/2024 13. We find that the appeal was filed with a delay of 3 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said petition, we find the reasons stated by the assessee