← 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

Shree Rajendra Suri Sah Sakh Santha Myd, Rajgarh vs. The Income Tax Officer, Dhar

ITA 361/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

days in filing the appeal for A.Y.2013- 14 & 1693 days in filing the appeal for A.Y.2014-15. The assesee has filed applications for condonation of delay which are supported by affidavits of the Chairman of the assessee society. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that an FIR was registered

Shree Rajendra Suri Sah Sakh Santha Myd, Rajgarh vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Dhar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 360/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

days in filing the appeal for A.Y.2013- 14 & 1693 days in filing the appeal for A.Y.2014-15. The assesee has filed applications for condonation of delay which are supported by affidavits of the Chairman of the assessee society. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that an FIR was registered ... Tribunal/Appellate Authority found that litigant deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of appeal. In the said case the Hon'ble High Court has condoned the delay of 2984 days. He has then relied Page 3 of 12 ITANo.360 & 361/Ind/2023 Rajendra Suri Sah Sakh Santha . the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court

Natarajan, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Itward-1(1), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 123/CHNY/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.123/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-2012 Shri Natarajan The Income Tax Officer, 353, Pudupettai Main Road, Vs. International Taxation, Indira Nagar, C. Puthupettai, Ward 2(1), Parangipettai Post, Chennai 600 006 Cuddalore 608 502. Pan: Anfpn 9506Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta, Irs, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri. J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

dated 28.02.2022 was communicated to the assessee on 05.03.2022 as per Form 36. The assessee’s brother has filed affidavit for condonation of delay stating the following reasons:- ‘’I, M.Kuppusamy, S/o. Mottayappan, Hindu, aged about 64 years, residing at 353, Pudupettai Main Road Indira Nagar, Cuddalore 608 502, do solemnly ... about the cover was not wanton or willful’’. ITA No 123 /Chny/2023 When these facts were confronted to ld.JCIT-DR, he objected for condoning the delay. We find the cause as reasonable and hence, interest of justice condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised

Coregeo Tech (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1626/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

delay. He observed that in sl.nos. 14 & 15 of Form 35 assessee has claimed there was delay in filing appeal and grounds for condonation of delay are filed separately, but no such grounds were uploaded with Form 35. He also called for the assessee’s explanation regarding disallowance ... regarding the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, since there was no response from the assessee, the ld. FAA rejected condonation of delay for want of assessee’s submissions and dismissed the appeal as unadmitted. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 4. The assessee

Udaya Souharda Credit Co-Operative, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1535/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 801

assessee against the order dated 28.06.2024 of the Addl. CIT / JCIT(Appeals)-5, Mumbai, for the AY 2019-20 dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Page 2 of 9 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income ... assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 11.07.2024 with a delay of 1350 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay and the reasons given by the assessee are as under:- “a. It is submitted that the appellant was not aware of the return of income

Alok Joshi, Uttrakhand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3219/MUM/2024[AY 2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Kshipra Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 246ASection 271(1)(b)

delay of 3939 days. It has resulted into inordinate delay of filing of appeal. The reasons given by assessee are not sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). According to him, assessee did not inform the department about the change of residential address. Assessee ... assessee has been admitted for adjudication against the assessment order. On these stated facts and circumstances in the case, assessee prays for condonation of delay since there is no intentional or deliberate attempt on his part in filing the appeal belatedly. According to him, explanation so furnished corroborated by documentary

Smollan India Csr Foundation, Navi Mumbai vs. CPC - ITO (Exemption) 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3092/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Smollan India Csr Foundation Centralised Processing Dakshina, 5Th Floor, Plot No.2, Centre/Income Tax Officer Sector 11, Cbd Belapur, Vs. (Exemption) 2(3) Navi Mumbai-400 614 Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. AthavaleFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44A

which the assessee has filed an Affidavit for condoning the said delay, which on perusal of the same, we deem it fit to condone the delay as there being a ‘sufficient cause’ for the said delay. Delay condoned. 3. The assessee has challenged the order ... failing to condone the delay in filing audit report for claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. 2 Smollan India CSR Foundation 4. Briefly stated the assessee is a Charitable Trust registered u/s. 12A of the Act and had filed its return of income on 06.11.2022, declaring total income

Amratlal and Dhirajlal and Co, Mumbai vs. DCIT 23(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2875/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 694

days in filing the present appeal. Considering the facts and circumstances as explained by the assessee, we find it appropriate to condone the delay and take up the matter for adjudication. 4. From the perusal of the assessment order, we note that ld. Assessing Officer had observed that assessee ... being surrendered by it on 30.06.2017 i.e., after six years of the relevant Assessment Year are already stated above while dealing with condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. 6. On the legal issues raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), he took note of the facts

M/S Benara Bearing Pvt.Ltd, Agra vs. DCIT-CC-1, Kanpur

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

ITA 333/LKW/2024[B.P.1996-97 to 2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. : B.P. 1996-97 To 2002-03 M/S Benara Bearings Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income- 44/347, Bharatpur Road, Vs. Tax, Central Circle-1, Kanpur Bodla, Agra-282007 U.P. Pan:Aabcb5525F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, Advcoate Revenue By: Sh. Gayasuddin, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.09.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, AdvcoateFor Respondent: Sh. Gayasuddin, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 158BSection 245CSection 250Section 263

this appeal before us. At the very outset, it is observed that this appeal too is delayed by 177 days. An application for condonation of delay was filed accompanied by an affidavit in which it was submitted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was passed by the NFAC ... appeal and the facts brought on record by the assessee should have been objectively considered by the ld. CIT(A) before refusing to condone the delay. In considering how applications for condonation of delay should be handled, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag

Sjvn Limited, Shimla Himachal Pradesh vs. ACIT, Shimla

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

ITA 150/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM & & &, SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sood, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

same time, liberty was granted to the assessee to prefer an appeal against the order under section 143(1) with the condonation of delay in terms of Section 249(3) of the Act if there was misconception that the relevant issues were considered in the assessment order and the order

Aadi Real Estate Developers Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 928/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aadi Real Estate Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward 1(1)(1), 402, Sheel Complex, Mayur Ahmedabad Colony, Mithakhali, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aajca 1796 R अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 25.05.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Relating To The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Had Filed ‘Nil’ Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year, I.E. Ay 2012-13. Subsequently, On Information Received From Ddit (Inv.), Unit-1 (3), Ahmedabad, By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Was A Beneficiary Of Accommodation Entry Taken Through Dummy Companies Run & Controlled By One Jignesh Shah, Which Information Was Revealed Consequent To Search Action Conducted On Jignesh Shah, The Case Of The Aadi Real Estate Developers Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito Ay : 2012-13 2

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 68

appeal before us by 485 days. The contents of the same are reproduced hereunder:- “Subject Application for Condonation of Delay in filing the aforesaid appeal before the ITAT, I,Vishal Mukeshkumar Shah, director of the applicant, do solemnly affirm on oath that whatever is stated in the below paras ... professional, and therefore, the explanation of the assessee for the delay cannot be accepted, and therefore he pleaded that the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal needs to be rejected and the appeal of the assessee be dismissed as non-maintainable. 12. To this, the ld. Counsel

Navroz Munshi, Vadodara vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Present Jurisdiction the ITO Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1110/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1110/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Navroz Munshi National Faceless Assessment बनाम A-301, Green Emerald Centre Present / B/H. Utopian Corner Jurisdiction The Ito V/S. New Alkapuri Ward-1(2)(3) Vadodara – 390 023 Vadodara – 390 007 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aojpm 8149 K अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushin Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee, while filing the appeal, faced a delay of 548 days, for which a request for condonation of delay was made, citing reasons such as non- receipt of the assessment order, COVID-19 disruptions, and difficulty in gathering documents. However ... difficulties in procuring necessary documents. These reasons constitute sufficient cause under Section 249(3) of the Act, and the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay. Considering the circumstances, the Departmental Representative (DR) has not raised any objection in condoning the delay. 9. The discrepancies in the AO’s assessment

ITO Ward 1, Sangli vs. Balu Musa Dange, Sangli

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

ITA 930/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.930/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, V Balu Musa Dange, Ward-I, Sangli. S I Dsp Office Vishrambag, Sangli. Maharashtra – 416415. Pan: Ancpd1861F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Dated 07.03.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “(I) Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Holding That If The Similar Addition Is Made In The Case Of Assessee’S Wife, The Addition In Case Of Assessee Shall Become Protective. (Ii) Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Deciding The Issue On The Basis Of Statement Of Fact, As The Assessee Did Neither Attend Before The Ao Nor Before The Cit(A).

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)

Aggrieved by the same, assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) which was delayed by 153 days. 3.2 The ld.CIT(A) condoned the delay, though no separate petition for condonation of delay filed by the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) issued notices to the assessee. However, assessee failed to comply

Sanjay Nimba Pawar, Nashik vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Malegaon

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

ITA 1972/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1972/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit
Section 144Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69A

assessee read as under: “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, lower authorities erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal without appreciating the facts of the case. Your appellant 2 Sanjay Nimba Pawar prays for condonation of delay and granting

Abdul Irfan Abdul Ajij Sheikh, Wardha vs. ITO, Ward-2, Wardha

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

ITA 78/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Ms. Shrishti PandeFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 69A

appeal before the Tribunal. While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has filed Affidavit in support of condonation of delay thereby requesting the Bench for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. The reason for the delay in filing the present appeal ... filing the appeal belatedly and we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal is due to reasonable cause. Consequently, we condone the delay of 20 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 3. Insofar as the impugned order passed

Vnit Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 134/NAG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)

Whether on the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred rejecting request for condonation of delay in filing appeal without issuing any prior show cause notice thereby, denying opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2 VNIT Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.134Nag./2024 3. Whether ... information which is not communicated upon to assessee cannot be acted or protested. The assessee pray that, Your Honour may kindly condone the delay as we are representing our members and our society members are very low-income category and we cannot suffer the cost of such delay which

Anand Govind Thatte, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Nagpur

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

ITA 127/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

application explaining the cause of such delay which is supported by an Affidavit, the content of which are reproduced below:– “AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY 1. Anand Govind Thatte, do hereby take oath and state on solemn affirmation as under. - 1. That I am assessed to Income Tax vide Permanent ... caused. 10. In light of the above facts and in the interest of natural justice I pray before your honours to kindly condone the delay in filing of the appeal. admit the appeal and hear the appeal on merits in the interest of natural justice. 11. I have gone through

Fazle Raoof Sheikh, Bhilwara vs. DCIT, Ajmer

44. As a_ result, appeals-ITA No

ITA 381/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Oct 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal, C.A. ( Through V.C.)For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153ASection 69A

Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member. All the above captioned three appeals came to be presented on 27.03.2024. Same are accompanied by separate applications seeking condonation of delay, if any, in filing thereof. 2. The appellant-application has challenged three impugned orders each dated 11.01.2024 by Learned CIT(A), whereby his appeals ... incriminating documents/loose papers, which were seized. 7. After filing of the appeals, as noticed above, the assessee-applicant presented an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of said appeals. ITA No. 379 to 381/JPR/2024 Fazle Raoof Sheikh vs. DCIT 8. In the application, the applicant-appellant alleged that

Fazle Raoof Sheikh, Bhilwara vs. DCIT, Ajmer

44. As a result, appeals-ITA

ITA 380/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal, C.A. ( Through V.C.)For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153Section 153ASection 69A

Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member. All the above captioned three appeals came to be presented on 27.03.2024. Same are accompanied by separate applications seeking condonation of delay, if any, in filing thereof. 2. The appellant-application has challenged three impugned orders each dated 11.01.2024 by Learned CIT(A), whereby his appeals ... incriminating documents/loose papers, which were seized. 7. After filing of the appeals, as noticed above, the assessee-applicant presented an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of said appeals. Fazle Raoof Sheikh vs. DCIT 8. In the application, the applicant-appellant alleged that the impugned order passed by Learned

Fazle Raoof Sheikh, Bhilwara vs. DCIT, Ajmer

44. As a result, appeals-ITA

ITA 379/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal, C.A. ( Through V.C.)For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153Section 153ASection 69A

Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member. All the above captioned three appeals came to be presented on 27.03.2024. Same are accompanied by separate applications seeking condonation of delay, if any, in filing thereof. 2. The appellant-application has challenged three impugned orders each dated 11.01.2024 by Learned CIT(A), whereby his appeals ... incriminating documents/loose papers, which were seized. 7. After filing of the appeals, as noticed above, the assessee-applicant presented an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of said appeals. Fazle Raoof Sheikh vs. DCIT 8. In the application, the applicant-appellant alleged that the impugned order passed by Learned