← 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

Himadri Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, (OSD), Ward-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 821/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 127Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

been preferred. 1.2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that the ld. CIT(A) did wrong by not condoning the delay though appellant has submitted a reasonable cause of delay of 17 days. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in fact, there ... Order passed by the First Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee on account the delay by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal by observing that there is lack of diligence and inaction on its part which could have been avoided by the appellant with

Gyan Bharti Educational Trust, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1548/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 144Section 250

delayed filing of Form-10B. Ld. CIT(A) in its order has held that appellant did not file any application for condonation of delay in filing Form-10B and ld. CIT(A) has no power to condone the delay and accordingly, appeal has been dismissed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with ... delay of 20 days. Ld. CIT(A) in its order has held that the assessee apparently not made any application for the condonation of delay in filing Form-10B belatedly. We have perused the cited decision in the case of Bangarh Educational Welfare Trust vs. ITO (Exemptions

Jeevan Samaj Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward (Exemption), Thane

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

ITA 5186/MUM/2024[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailjeevan Samaj Trust Flat No. B/15, Vinay Guru Chs Saraswat Colony, Dombivalie, ……………. Appellant Maharashatra - 421201 Pan: Aadtj7610G V/S

For Appellant: Shri Tushar KochaleFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR
Section 12A

delay of 153 days in filing the present appeal is not intentional. The submissions made by the assessee in its application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal are reproduced as follows: – “1) The appellant is a Public Charitable Trust duly registered under the Maharashtra Public Trust ... taken to challenge the impugned order after 04.02.2024 till said medical emergency was settled. The Appellant - Trust has preferred separate application seeking condonation of delay of around 153 days in filing present Appeal. Collectively true and correct copies of medical papers of Appellant's Chief Trustee's Son Mr. Joel

Rajesh Kumar Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 660/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs Ito 108, Parmesh Business Ward- 2 (2) Centre Plot No.20 Ghaziabad Community Centre, Karkardooma New Delhi Pan No.Ahlps06322A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 69

that the notice and order were not served on the correct address of the assessee. He has further submitted that the application for condonation of delay should be allowed and appeal should have been heard on merit. He has also submitted that the assessee has filed the condonation application ... condone the delay but the application was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee relying upon the following judicial decisions :- 1. Neelkanth Plywood Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 2. GKN Driveshoft India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 3. Hameede Begum Vs. ITO 6. The Ld. DR fairly conceded to this

Noman Hussain, Lucknow vs. ITO-3(2), Hardoi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Mustaq Ahmad Mir, CostFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194ASection 270ASection 270A(9)

admit the appeal ITA No.96&97/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 7 and the appeal was dismissed in limine by the NFAC without condoning the delay. 4. Similarly, in the penalty proceedings, the AO had imposed penalty of Rs.1,61,86,626/- under section 270A(9) of the Act and the appeal ... erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay in filing of appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) had erred in outright rejection of appellant's prayer for condonation of delay filed along with the appeal without

Noman Husain, Lucknow vs. ITO-3(2), Hardoi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 96/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Mustaq Ahmad Mir, CostFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194ASection 270ASection 270A(9)

admit the appeal ITA No.96&97/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 7 and the appeal was dismissed in limine by the NFAC without condoning the delay. 4. Similarly, in the penalty proceedings, the AO had imposed penalty of Rs.1,61,86,626/- under section 270A(9) of the Act and the appeal ... erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay in filing of appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) had erred in outright rejection of appellant's prayer for condonation of delay filed along with the appeal without

Bhupinder Singh Son of Sh. Gurmukh Singh, Punjab vs. The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Chandigarh-1, C.R Building Himalaya Marg, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh, Punjab

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 825/CHANDI/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 144Section 253Section 263

impugned order”. Factual Matrix The Registry has pointed out delay of 586 days and the assessee has 2. preferred a condonation of delay application wherein it is interalia contended that the assessee is a senior citizen aged about 74 years old and is suffering from various ailments including heart problem ... conquers with this fact, a letter dt. 23/08/2024 of Ld. AR perused by us too; in support of the condonation of delay filed on behalf of the assessee. Delay condoned. Appeal taken up for hearing. The Facts 4. The assessee is an individual who is an agriculturist

Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1)(Previously Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)), Vadodara

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

ITA 1572/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1572/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani The Dy.Cit बनाम/ A-17, Videocon Housing Colony Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Chavaj, Bharuch 392 002 Vadodara (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Acnpm 0273 C अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26/12/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, In Which The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao)”] Under Section 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Was Confirmed Vide Assessment Order Dated 28/03/2016. Facts Of The Case: 2. The Assessee, An Individual Earning Income From Salaries, Trading In Shares & Securities, Capital Gains & Other Sources, Filed His Return Of Anilkumar Dwarkaprasad Modani Vs. The Dcit Asst. Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Asst. Year : 2013-14 5.1. The appeal was filed with a delay of 191 days, and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. Condonation of Delay 6. The assessee has explained that upon receipt of the CIT(A)’s order on 26.12.2023, he forwarded ... immediate steps were taken to file it on 02.09.2024, resulting in a delay of 191 days. The assessee has supported his application for condonation of delay with an affidavit from his Chartered Accountant, explaining the reasons for the delay and affirming that it was unintentional and due to an oversight

Valjibhai Arjanbhai Vegad, Bhavnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(9), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 1063/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1063/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Valjibhai Arjanbhai Vegad The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Rajput Street Ward-1(9) V/S. Nawangam Ga Bhavnagar- 364 002 Tal : Vallabhipur Bhavnagar – 364 313 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aykpv 0860 F अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Balani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 234ASection 271ASection 69A

time, on or before the hearing of appeal. 5. The assessee filed an appeal before us along with an application for condonation of delay of 244 days. The Authorized Representative (AR) explained the reasons for the delay, supported by an affidavit from the assessee. The AR submitted that the assessee ... despite his best efforts. Valjibhai Arjanbhai Vegad vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 6. The Departmental Representative (DR) did not object to the condonation of delay, considering the genuine difficulties faced by the assessee as explained in the affidavit. The DR expressed no objection to allowing the assessee a fresh

Sri Ponniah Ramajathammal Education and Charitable Trust, Thanjavur vs. DCIT, Exemption Circle, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2387/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri K. Meenakshi Sundaram, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, Addl.CIT
Section 250

There is a delay of 206 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay along with the supporting affidavit stating therein the reason for belated filing of this appeal. The reason stated in the affidavit is that the Managing Trustee ... 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. At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(A) has passed

Prabhu Chhaya Chs Ltd., Mumbai vs. CPC and ITO Ward 24(3)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 5106/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 5106/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Athavale, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kakoli Ghosh, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)

common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Both the appeals are barred by limitation. The assessee has requested for the condonation of delay and the reasons given are supported by an affidavit which have been considered and the delay is condoned. 4. The sum and substance

Prabhu Chhaya Chs Ltd., Mumbai vs. CPC and Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5103/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 5106/Mum/2024

For Respondent: Ms. Kakoli Ghosh, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Both the appeals are barred by limitation. The assessee has requested for the condonation of delay and the reasons given are supported by an affidavit which have been considered and the delay is condoned. आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Swati Sanjay Khadye, Tardeo Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Piramal Chamber Lalbaug

ITA 2749/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 43CSection 56(2)(x)

Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There was a delay of 78 days in filing the present appeal. In the application seeking condonation of delay it has been stated that the Appellant got knowledge of the order, dated 13/12/2023, having been passed by the CIT(A) belatedly since the order impugned ... bonafide and reasonable, we hold that Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, we condoned the delay in filing the present appeal in terms of Section 253(5) of the Act and proceed to adjudicate the following grounds of appeal raised

Bajaj Processing Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 21(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1279/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mayur J. GosraniFor Respondent: Ms. Kaveeta Punit Kaushik, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 184(5)Section 245Section 250(6)

following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting condonation of delay in filing of appeal before CIT(A) and not considering the merits of the case. The appellant had been denied of principle of natural ... justice. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) while rejecting the condonation of delay erred in holding that the appellant is aware of notices since he has filed an adjournment request via the portal. The appellant came to know about

National Culture Fund, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Exemp

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

ITA 2722/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 11(2)Section 12A

confirming the addition made by Ld.AO as Income of of Rs- 2,85,12,371 u/s 11(2) without giving an opportunity for Condonation of Delay within the circular of CBDT No 7/2017 dated 20.12.2018 issued after the date of the assessment Order 17.12.2018. 3. Brief facts of the case ... assessment Order 17.12.2018 provided for filing of condonation petition before the CIT(E) in filing Form No.10. He further stated that a condonation of delay in filing of Form No.10 is filed with CIT(E) on 03.01.2019, which is still pending and till the same is decided, the decision

National Culture Fund, Fifth Floor D-Block vs. AO Ward-Exempation-2(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 2721/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 11(2)Section 12A

confirming the addition made by Ld.AO as Income of of Rs- 2,85,12,371 u/s 11(2) without giving an opportunity for Condonation of Delay within the circular of CBDT No 7/2017 dated 20.12.2018 issued after the date of the assessment Order 17.12.2018. 3. Brief facts of the case ... assessment Order 17.12.2018 provided for filing of condonation petition before the CIT(E) in filing Form No.10. He further stated that a condonation of delay in filing of Form No.10 is filed with CIT(E) on 03.01.2019, which is still pending and till the same is decided, the decision

M/S U.P Hindi Sansthan, Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income Tax -(Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 727/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. U.P. Hindi Sansthan. Commissioner Of Income V. 6, Hindi Sansthan, Mg Road, Tax (Exemptions) Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001. T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, Upsidc Ltd, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaau1297Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S. U.P. Hindi Sansthan. Tax (Exemptions) 6, Hindi Sansthan, Mg T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, Upsidc Ltd, Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow- Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, 226001. Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaju0103A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Hariom Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 254(3)

years has already been lapsed and the CIT(E), Lucknow had already rejected vide order dated 12.12.2018 the application of the assessee for condonation of delay for filing of form no. 10. 3. The order of Ld. CIT(A) be cancelled and the order of the AO be restored ... under: - “1. That the Ld. CIT(Exemptions), Lucknow, has erred in law and on facts of the case in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing Form No. ‘10’ relating to accumulation of fund, without specifying any cogent reason. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Exemptions), Lucknow has erred

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -(Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Hindi Sansthan, Lucknow

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. U.P. Hindi Sansthan. Commissioner Of Income V. 6, Hindi Sansthan, Mg Road, Tax (Exemptions) Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001. T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, Upsidc Ltd, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaau1297Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S. U.P. Hindi Sansthan. Tax (Exemptions) 6, Hindi Sansthan, Mg T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, Upsidc Ltd, Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow- Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, 226001. Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaju0103A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Hariom Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 254(3)

years has already been lapsed and the CIT(E), Lucknow had already rejected vide order dated 12.12.2018 the application of the assessee for condonation of delay for filing of form no. 10. 3. The order of Ld. CIT(A) be cancelled and the order of the AO be restored ... under: - “1. That the Ld. CIT(Exemptions), Lucknow, has erred in law and on facts of the case in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing Form No. ‘10’ relating to accumulation of fund, without specifying any cogent reason. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Exemptions), Lucknow has erred

ITO(Exemption), Ward-1(3), Kolkata vs. Suresh Amiya Memorial Trust, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 652/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Kaustav Chakraborty &For Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44A

result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.” 6. Apparently, the CPC allowed the rectification application filed by the assessee and condoned the delay in filing Form No. 10B of the Act. Since the demand had not been deleted, therefore, the assessee had filed an appeal before ... with the revenue authorities. Considering these aspects, CBDT firstly came up with a Notification dt. 03/01/2020 authorising the Commissioners to admit applications of condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10B for Assessment Year 2018-19 and subsequent Assessment Years, where there is a delay of up to 365 days

DCIT Cir-4(1), Kolkata vs. Arihant Plantation Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1238/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250Section 68

note of the Registry, appeal of the revenue is barred by limitation by 171 days. No application for condonation of delay has been filed. Only ground of appeal has been taken by the revenue in this respect amongst other grounds of appeal, which are reproduced as under: “1. The delay ... present appeal on 21.11.2023. The reasons for filing the appeal are absolutely vague and cannot be said to be sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. This appeal is purely an afterthought, after the receipt of the order of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee’s appeal. I.T.A. No.1238/Kol/2023