“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

Aa531 Kesarimangalam Primary Agrl Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Erode

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

ITA 1872/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1872/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aa531 Kesarimangalam Primary Income Tax Officer, Agri Co-Op Credit Society Limited, V. Ward -2(5), Kuppichipalayam, Erode. Kesarimangalam (P.O), Bhavani – 638 311. [Pan: Aacaa-6388-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : None ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)

outset, we find that there is a delay of 72 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons for delay has been filed. After :-2-: ITA. No: 1872/Chny/2024 considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties ... after considering the submissions made by the assessee held that the there is no sufficient cause u/s. 249(3) of the Act for condoning the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating on merits by not condoning :-4-: ITA. No: 1872/Chny/2024 the delay. Aggrieved by the order

Muniyappa Srinivasa Gowda, Bangarpet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kolar

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

ITA 1852/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Raghvendra Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 250

There is a delay of 32 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with the supporting affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. On perusal of the reasons stated in the affidavit ... 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 CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal

Zahir Kasam Memon, Mumbai vs. Addl-JCIT (A)-2, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 914/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2019-20 Zahir Kasam Memon Addl-Jcit (A) -2 Memon Brothers, Chennai, Pinjarwada, Tamil Nadu. Kumbharwada, Vs. Zenda Bazar, Vasai (West).-401201. Pan:Aempm1407R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Murtaza Quresh Ghadiali- CA &For Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh-

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 253(3)Section 253(5)Section 36(1)(va)

with a delay of 12 days in both the appeals. He has filed the affidavit of the assessee stating as under: “Affidavit for Condonation of Delay in Filing The Appeal Against Assessment Order Of Commissioner of Income Tax Ward/Range - ADDL/JCIT (A)-2 CHENNAI 1) I. ZAHIR KASAM MEMON aged about ... have filed is after Sixty-Five days and that there is a minor delay of 05 days for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed as provided under section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8) That delay in filing the appeal is bona fide

Kirit Parasmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3774/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

before 30.06.2023. However, it was filed on 24.01.2024. In this respect Kirit Parasmal Jain., AY 17-18 assessee had furnished an application for condonation of delay, contents of which are reproduced in the order of ld. CIT(A). The said application was rejected and appeal was dismissed on account ... looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." 6.3. We do not deem it necessary

Kirit Parasmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3772/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Hasmukh A Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO, WD-19(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 2159/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147o

record. We note that there is delay of 2075 days in filing the present appeal. The Assessee has filed application seeking for condonation of delay in filing the appeal along with affidavit wherein it has been stated as under: “I had preferred an appeal against the order ... just fortnight before COVID. Attaching herewith the Photocopy of Affidavit of Rs. 500 for condonation of delay duly notarized. We humbly submit that the delay has occurred by inadvertence and there was absolutely no willful intention in not filing the appeal on time. We are thus prevented by sufficient cause

Rekha, Rohtak vs. ITO, Ward - 5, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2895/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Royrekha, Rohtak Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Rohtak H. No.145, Ward No. 22, Income Tax Office, Kishanpura, Rohtak Rohtak Haryana-124001 Haryana-124001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aqspj7122J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Navin Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144

justice. With the aforesaid observation the issue, is, thus, remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the issue of condonation of delay afresh explanation whereof is directed to be filed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) is further directed to proceed with the matter

Bharti Patwal, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward 44(3), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2160/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roybharti Patwal Vs. Ito, Ward 44(3) F-814, Jalvuyu Tower, New Delhi Sector 56, Gurgaon Haryana 122001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaopp8338A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148

MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The appeal is barred by limitation for 60 days and the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before us supported by medical documents and affidavit. The reason for delay narrated by the assessee in the said application is on medical

Nalwadi Charitable Trust, Delhi vs. ITO Ward Exemp 2(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1778/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1778/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2020-21) Nalwadi Charitable Trust, B-60/61, C/O Bajaj Auto Limited, Naraina Industrial Area Phase-Ii, New Delhi 110028 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaatn-0324-N

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate and Shri Mahendra Gohel, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12(1)Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

accounts audited and furnished Form 10B subsequent to filing of return of income and the assessee had also filed application for condonation of delay before the concerned jurisdictional CIT, the said application is still pending for adjudication before the CIT for final disposal. Hence, during pendency of said application

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. Ci Hospitality Worldwide Private Limited, Lucknow

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

ITA 449/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 253(3)

beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act” for short). In the petition filed by Revenue for condonation of delay, it is stated that there is no limitation in view of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 23/03/2020 taking cognizance for extension ... situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of COVID-19 virus. It was accordingly requested to condone the delay. At the time of hearing before us, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had no objection to request of Revenue for condonation

Arunbhai Nimbalkar Gajare, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 567/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.567/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Arunbhai Nimbalkar Gajare The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 2, Krishna Appt Ward-5(3)(4) V/S. Bhudarpura Road Ahmedabad Ambawadi Ahmedabasd – 380 006 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aktpg 8637 L अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal. Arunbhai Nimbalkar Gajare Asst. Year : 2012-13 Condonation of Delay 4. The appeal was filed with a delay of 130 days, for which the assessee has submitted an application for condonation, supported ... there is no evidence of any malafide intent. The medical certificate corroborates the assessee's claim. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay of 130 days in filing the appeal and proceed to decide the appeal. 5.1. The assessee has primarily challenged the ex-parte nature

Chandraprabhu Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Solapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Pandharpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1858/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessee has filed this appeal with a delay of 286 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with a sworn affidavit stating therein the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal. On perusal of the same, we are satisfied that the delay in filing ... affidavit. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the delay is attributable to the sufficient cause. We, therefore condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld. AO has erred

Sivarama Krishnaiah Gumpena, Bengaluru vs. ITO-W-5(3)(2), Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1913/BANG/2024[2010.11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Sri.N.P.S.Sundar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

There is a considerable delay (around 6 years) in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay. The assessee also raised grounds contending the additions arising out of the issues not adjudicated by the CIT(A)'s order which ... order giving effect dated 27.08.2024 has retained. For the purpose of adjudication first we will consider the issue of condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld AR submitted that since the appellate order stated

Jagdish Kanakraj Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 655/Mum/2024 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1655/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Shri. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Aman ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar (SRAR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

parte. We find that the assessee has explained the reason for non-receiving of noticesin appeal proceeding. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) and explained reason for delay in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the reasonable opportunity

Ashu Shukla, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO Ward 5(1)(1), Gautam Budh Nagar

ITA 1853/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Ito Ward 5(1)(1), Gautam Smt Ashu Shukla, Nri Residency, Flat No.204, Budh Nagar, Noida, Tower-1, Sector-45, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh- 201 301 Pan :Bsips9841Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pancham Sethi, Ca Department By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr, Dr

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

assessee could only file the appeal on 26.06.2024. In support of such facts the assessee before us also filed an application seeking Condonation of delay along with an affidavit, the contents/reasons whereof seems to be genuine having regard to the medical documents submitted by the assessee and moreso, the same ... been converted by the Learned DR. Further that, the reasons assigned by the assessee categorically mentioned in the application seeking Condonation of delay supported by affidavit affirmed by the assessee as acceptable particularly when no intentional laches is found on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal before

Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1544/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1543/Ahd/2024 & 1544/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai The Ito बनाम/ Makwana Ward-3(1)(2) V/S. Prop. Of Master Platers Ahmedabad – 380 015 Udhyognagar Tavdipura, Shahibaug Ahmedabad – 380 004 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aktpm 2009 E अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270ASection 56(2)(x)

facts in dismissing the appeal total disregard of propositions laid down by Supreme Court and duly considered by the other courts for condonation of delay of filling of appeal, on the ground of delay without considering the cause of delay on account of default of his counsel as detailed ... Asst. Year : 2018-19 5 9. On the facts of the assessee the appeal ought to have been decided on merit by condoning the delay occurring on account of reasonable cause and the appeal ought not to have been held as not maintainable ab - initio. 10. Appellant craves leave

Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1543/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270ASection 56(2)(x)

The Modasa Dhansura Taluka Teachers Co.Op. Credit Society Ltd., Arvalli vs. The ACIT, Hmt Circle, Himatnagar Present Jurisdiction the Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1478/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1478/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Modasa Dhansura Taluka The Acit बनाम/ Teachers Co-Op.Credit Hmt Circle, Himatnagar V/S. Society Ltd. Present Jurisdiction - S/43, 2Nd Floor The Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1)(1) Shyam Sunder Complex Ahmedabad – 380 015 Station Road, At & Po Modasa Ta. Modasa Aravalli 383 315 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aabat 2852 M अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

valid given the rural location and nature of the society’s operations. It is well settled that the expression "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay should be liberally construed to advance the cause of substantial justice, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land ... covered by several judicial precedents, including those of the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, it would be in the interest of substantial justice to condone the delay and decide the case to be adjudicated on merits. 8.2. The AR submitted that the disallowance was incorrect and that the interest income from

Sajid Dastagir Sayyed, Latur vs. Ward 1 Latur, Latur

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

ITA 1181/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 69A

assessee has filed this appeal with a delay of 33 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with a sworn affidavit stating therein the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal. On perusal of the same, we are satisfied that the delay in filing ... affidavit. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the delay is attributable to the sufficient cause. We, therefore condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order of the learned CIT(A) confirming

Sajid Dastagir Sayyed, Latur vs. Ward 1 Latur, Latur

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

ITA 1180/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80A