← 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

Karwar Nagari Sahakari Patsansta Maryadit, Pune vs. Pne -W- 59(1), Pune

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

ITA 1658/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

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(1)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 12.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.Nil after claiming

Nirman Homes, Pune vs. DDIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2092/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2092/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Nirman Homes, Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru. 205, Citi Center, Karve Road, Avurved Rasshala, Pune- 411004. Pan : Aaaan5785E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Shri Sampada Ingale Revenue By : Smt. Neha Thakur (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-11 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Has Furnished Its Return Of Income Declaring An Income Of Rs.1,61,25,210/- After Claiming Deduction Of Rs.53,54,700/- U/S 80Ib Of The It Act. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act & Deduction U/S 80Ib Of The It Act Was Disallowed Since

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Thakur (Virtual)
Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80I

which above claim u/s 80IB was disallowed by CPC. We further find that the assessee has moved an application before CBDT praying for condonation of delay in filing Form 10CCB. The above application filed by the assessee was accepted by CBDT and vide order dated 3 07.01.2026 the delay ... perusal of CBDT order dated 07.01.2026 passed u/s 119(2)(b) of the IT Act it is apparent that the CBDT has condoned the delay in filing of Form 10CCB of the IT Act subject to verification of claims made by the assessee in Form 10CCB by the Jurisdictional Assessing

Laxmikant Nandkishor Toshniwal, Latur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Latur

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

ITA 1853/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1853/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Laxmikant Nandkishor Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Latur. Toshniwal, Nandkishor Toshniwal, Deva Niwas, Bhagya Nagar, Nandi Stop, Latur- 413512. Pan : Agppt1081M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing 05.01.2026 : Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Non-Acceptance Of Condonation Of Delay 1.1 The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) ["The Ld. Cit(A)] Has Erred In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Without Properly Considering The Cause For Delay.

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. Rathi (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

/NFAC for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. NON-ACCEPTANCE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY 1.1 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) ["the Ld. CIT(A)] has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal without properly ... this regard, we find that the assessee has raised various grounds, however his sole prayer is to direct Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits of the case. Ld. DR has not raised any objection to the above request of the assessee

Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Hyderbad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

ITA 2272/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering ... application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 13. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that the AO in the absence

Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

ITA 2271/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering ... application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 13. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that the AO in the absence

Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

ITA 1529/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering ... application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 13. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that the AO in the absence

Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle- 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

ITA 1515/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering ... application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 13. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that the AO in the absence

Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Cirle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

ITA 1514/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering ... application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 13. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that the AO in the absence

Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

ITA 1501/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering ... application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 13. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that the AO in the absence

Syed Omer, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1404/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

notices issued by the CIT(A), 5 Syed Omer fixing the case for hearing on 28.01.2025 and submitted a petition for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal and also sought adjournment of the hearing to file relevant details, which are available in the paper book filed ... assessee. Although the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and also sought adjournment of the hearing, but the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee vide his order dated 28.01.2025, without condoning the delay of 348 days in filing the appeal, even though the assessee

Satya Kour, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1032/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 4Section 69A

delay of 48 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the order of the learned CIT(A), NFAC was passed on 24.02.2025 and the due date for filing of appeal before the Tribunal ... with the delay were neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice for which the Ld.DR has not raised any objection. 3. We have heard

Karuppannan Ramasamy, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 3181/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3180 & 3181/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Respondent: Ms. R.Kavitha, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 250

There was a delay of 556 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay, wherein it is stated that the assessee is a senior citizen and is not well versed with handling computers to get updates with regard to the income ... when summons were issued, the assessee came to know of the appellate order and immediately filed the appeal. Accordingly, the assessee prayed for condonation of delay. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. Considering the fact that the assessee being a senior citizen

Karuppannan Ramasamy, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 3180/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3180 & 3181/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Respondent: Ms. R.Kavitha, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 250

There was a delay of 556 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay, wherein it is stated that the assessee is a senior citizen and is not well versed with handling computers to get updates with regard to the income ... when summons were issued, the assessee came to know of the appellate order and immediately filed the appeal. Accordingly, the assessee prayed for condonation of delay. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. Considering the fact that the assessee being a senior citizen

Sa L and Company, Madurai vs. ITO, Non Crop Circle 1, Madurai

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

ITA 3126/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3126/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 S A L & Company, The Income Tax Officer, No.4/798, Kurunchi Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 1, Thasildar Nagar, Madurai Anna Nagar, Madurai – 625 020 Pan: Abmfs 7293N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.CIT
Section 250

delay of 674 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit along with petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated in the affidavit are that the managing partner of the assessee firm ... view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. :- 3 -: 3. At the very outset, we notice that the order passed by the First

Late Nammalvar, Rep. by Padma Nammalvar, Nannilam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvarur

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

ITA 2310/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2310/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Late Nammalvar, The Income Tax Officer, Rep. By Smt. Padma Vs. Ward 1, Nammallvar, Tiruvarur No.1, Andal Gas Agency, Tiruvarur Main Road, Nannilam – 610 105. Pan: Aaepn 6229J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.CIT
Section 139Section 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

became aware of the order only when logging into the Income-tax portal on 26.12.2022. The FAA held that the reasons stated for condonation of delay is not reasonable and did not condone the delay (para 6.4 of the impugned order). However, he discussed the issues on merits and adjudicated

Ragu Ram Keshava Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, I restore the issue to the file of the Ld

ITA 1320/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice –Assessment Year : 2022-23 Shri Raghurama Keshava Reddy, 138, 6Th Main, 1St Main, 1St Cross, The Income Tax Officer, Shankarnagar, Bangalore, Ward-6[2][1], Vs. Karnataka – 560 096. Bangalore. Pan: Aeepk1493D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kashinath Kalamath, Advocate
Section 143(1)

Therefore, Assessee is in Appeal. 6. The Appeal is time barred by 125 days for which the Assessee has submitted the application for condonation of delay along with the copies of the medical reports. It was found that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was received by the Assessee ... well as the various MRI reports of the brain of the Assessee. The Ld. Authorized Representative reiterated the same facts and requested for condonation of delay. 7. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently objected to the same. Page 3 of 5 8. On perusal of the records, I find that

Farid Abdul Rehman Thanawalla, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 8714/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethfarid Abdul Vs Income Tax Officer, Rehmanthanawalla Ward 22(1)(1) 21/A, Queens Park, Juhu Piramal Chamber, Tara Road, Santacruz(W), Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400049. Mumbai-400012. Pan/Gir No:Acapt3922G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 250Section 69

learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the CPC/AO to allow the claim for exemption under Section 11 to the appellant irrespective of condonation of delay in filing Form 10B granted by the Commissioner of Income tax (Exemption). 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the interest charged under ... noticed that there is delay 3. of 139 days in filing present appeal and in this regard assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay is on the record. The contentions of which is reproduced herein below: I am making this application before your honour for condonation of delay

Sanjay Kumar Mahadeo Patil, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 8496/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Prusethsanjaykumar Mahadeo Patil, Flat No.502, A Wing, Shivparvati Chs Ltd., Rsa 54, Mhada Layout, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (W), Mumbai – 400067 ............... Appellant Pan: Adlpp0237C

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Shah, Adv. (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 253(3)

present appeal is delayed by 224 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, which is duly supported by an affidavit, submitting as follows: – “1. The Petitioner has received the impugned order passed by the CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi ... preparation of appeal on or around 24th November, 2025. Thereafter, Income Tax Counsels prepared Form No. 36, Grounds of Appeal and Petition for Condonation of Delay with supporting Affidavit and sent the same for signature to the Petitioner's Chartered Accountants on or around end of November, 2025 and then

Janardan Namdev Gawali, Ambarnath vs. ITO Ward2(2) Kalyan, Kalyan

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

ITA 8245/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawaljanardan Namdev Gawali Palegaon, Anandnagar, Ambarnath Thane, Kalyan - Dombivali Maharashtra - 421502 ............... Appellant Pan: Apgpg9048B V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), J-63/12 Addl., Murbad Rani Mansion ……………… Respondent Industrial Area Midc, 2Nd Floor Murbad Road Kalyan, Kalyan – Dombivali Maharashtra – 421301 Assessee By : Ms. Mamta Watwani Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Mamta WatwaniFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

present appeal is delayed by 394 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, submitting as follows: – “I am preferring appeal before your honour against the Order u/s 250 of Income Tax Act,1961 dated 19.08.2024. I humbly submit this request for condonation ... genuine hardship and not due to any negligence or disregard for the law. I therefore earnestly request your good office to kindly condone the delay and allow me an opportunity to present my case and comply with the proceedings. I remain committed to fulfilling all legal requirements and respectfully seek

Arya Sindhu Sanskrit Gurukul Sansthan, Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 7701/MUM/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7700/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2025-26) & 2. Ita No. 7701/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2025-26) Arya Sindhu Sanskrit Cit (Exemption), Gurukul Sansthan 601, 6Th Floor, 141/253 Mulund Vs. Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Colony, Saraswati Te Building, Pedder Chowk, Mumbai-400 Road, Dr. Ganpatrao 082 Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 Pan/Gir No. Aaata2526R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(i)

filed on 18/07/2025. 4. Without prejudice to the above, in the circumstances and facts of our case, the Assessee did not file its condonation of delay in filing the application in Form AB, the Assessee requests Your Honour to remand the matter back to the learned Commissioner of Income ... Exemptions) so that the Assessee can file its condonation of delay in filing the application in Form AB in the interest of natural justice. 5. The Appellant crave leave to add, delete or substantiate any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 6. During the course of hearing before