“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

Vargshese Paul, Banglaore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 5(3)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 584/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavvarghese Paul Acit, Circle - 5(3)(2) B604, Duo Harmony Room No. 59, 6Th Floor 1, Suranjan Das Road Hmt Bhvan, No. 59, Bellary Vs. New Thippasandra Post Road, Ganga Nagar Bangalore 560075 Bengaluru 560032 Pan – Aevpp6357A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-12, Bengaluru Dated 24.02.2023 Having Din No. Itba/Apl/M/250/ 2022-23/1050096242(1) & Relates To Ay 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Five Grounds Of Appeal. Ground No. 1 & 5 Are General In Nature. In Ground Nos. 2 & 3 The Assessee Had Challenged The Applicability Of Article 4 Of India Us Dtaa To The Case Of The Assessee. In Ground No. 4 The Assessee Has Challenged The Denial Of Benefit Of Exemption Available To The Assessee Under Article 16 Of The India Us Dtaa. Beside These Grounds The Assessee Has Also Filed An Application On 29.07.2024 & Raised

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 90

attention of the bench towards the affidavit duly sworn by the assessee. The learned D.R. could not seriously oppose the prayer for condonation of delay. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 4. The facts leading

Atul Raj Builders Private Limited, Andheri East vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 9(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3943/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2017-18 Atul Raj Builders Private Ito, Ward-9(1)(4), Limited Mumbai 106 Shree Amba Shanti Vs. Chambers, Opp. Hotel Leela Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan: Aabca 7938 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dalpat Shah Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), Addl/Jcit(A)-9, Delhi. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Dalpat ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 249(3)Section 250(6)Section 37

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), ADDL/JCIT(A)-9, Delhi. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1 Rejection of Condonation of delay in filing of Appeal by 28 days U/S 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) 1.1 On the facts and circumstances ... case and in Law, the Addl./Jt. C.I.T. (Appeal) -9, Delhi, under National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filling of the appeal before him with a delay of merely 28 days on the ground that 'no sufficient cause' is made

Maharashtra Nursing Council, Mumbai vs. Depty Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1479/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 147Section 250

registration, tax liability is fastened even though they may otherwise be eligible for exemption and fulfil other substantive conditions. However, the power of condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available. 8.3 In order to provide relief to such trusts and remove hardship in genuine cases, section

Maharastra Nursing Council, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1478/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 147Section 250

Maharashtra Nursing Council, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) -2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1477/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 147Section 250

Maharashtra Nursing Council, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1476/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 147Section 250

Maharashtra Nursing Council, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

ITA 1475/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM ITA

Maharashtra Nursing Council, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1474/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 147Section 250

Ascent Constructions Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3217/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 3217/Del/2023, (A.Y.2017-18)

Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

have been wrongly ignored.” 3. There is a delay of 136 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay contending that, the cause for the delay due to inadvertent and oversight of the accountant who was maintaining financial records of the Company ... over the impugned order to the Director of the Assessee on time which resulted in delay in filing the present, thus sought for condoning the delay. 4. Considering the application for condonation of delay and for the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 136 days in filing

Future Money Sales and Marketing Pvt.Ltd, A-28, Near Bankey Bihari Tampel Rajendra Nager, Bareilly-243001, Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer -1(2), Bareilly-New.

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

ITA 194/LKW/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriafuture Money Sales & Income Tax Officer-1(2) V. Marketing Pvt. Ltd Rampur Garden, Bareilly- A-28, Near Bankey Bihari New-243001. Tample, Rajendra Nagar, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aabcf4395H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 10 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(2)(b)Section 249(3)

appeal within the due date stipulated u/s 249(2)(b) of the Act. He accordingly concluded that this was not fit case to condone the delay of appeal u/s 249(3) of the Act. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the assessee’s appeal and dismissed assessee ... presenting it within that period.” (emphasis supplied) Page 5 of 12 2.5 In this regard, the assessee should file an application for condonation of delay at the time of filing the appeal in Form No. 35, along with the details/reasons in order to demonstrate existence of “sufficient cause” for such

Shantiji Piraji Suthar, Banaskantha vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Palanpur

ITA 789/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.787/Ahd/2024, 788/Ahd/2024 & 789/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shantiji Piraji Suthar The Ito बनाम/ Sherpura, Ward-4 V/S. Tal.Deesa Palanpur – 385 001 Banaskantha – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bwops 8650 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.DR

Section 10(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 68

notices were in English), and the mistaken belief that agricultural income was not taxable. The assessee submitted an affidavit in support of the condonation of delay, along with additional evidence, including proof of agricultural income and loan statements to substantiate the source of the cash deposits. However ... during the course of appellate proceedings. 2. That on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay and decide the appeal in limine. 3. The appellant craves to leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground/s of appeal

Shantiji Piraji Suthar, Banaskantha vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Palanpur

ITA 788/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.DR

Section 10(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 68

Shantiji Piraji Suthar, Banaskantha vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Palanpur

ITA 787/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.DR

Section 10(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 68

Kamil Ayub Momin, Pune vs. ITO Ward 9(3), Pune

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

ITA 1888/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1888/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Pratik B. Sandhbhor

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

informed that there is a delay of 493 days in filing of the present appeal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for 2 condonation of delay citing the reasons mentioned in the detailed affidavit given by the assessee. 3. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and find merit ... dependent upon the tax consultants and for the lethargic approach of the tax consultants the delay has occurred. I therefore condone the delay of 493 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Though the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal but the sole grievance is against the addition

Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Employees Coop. Credit Society Limited, Raigad vs. ITO, Ward-3, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1869/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1869/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Ajinkya M. Vaishampayan

Section 147Section 250Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

notice receipt of any mail regarding such an order passed by ld. CIT(A). On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative opposed to condonation of delay. 4. I, however, on considering the reasons mentioned in the affidavit, find force in the contention of Ld. Counsel for the assessee stating ... justice, and on considering that the assessee society would not have gained anything from delaying in filing the appeal before this 3 Tribunal, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 5. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The Assessee Society requests

Janaki Ram Babji Rao Annam, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 92/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 92/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Janaki Ram Babji Rao Annam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-3(1), Pan: Aecpa4464Q Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 24/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

days in filing the appeal before the 2 Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit and the relevant paras of the affidavit are extracted herein below for reference: “……. I am presently staying with ... intentional and due to my brother’s health condition whom I have given power of Attorney I request the Hon’ble ITAT to condone the delay and admit the appeal. ……” 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee with respect to filing of the appeal before the Tribunal

Sitarama Raju Penumatsa, Jarajapeta vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 183/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.183/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sitarama Raju Penumatsa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-363-1443, Santhoshimatha Ward-2, Nagar, Jarajapeta, Nellimarla, Vizianagaram. Vizianagaram District-535217, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Awfpp2521A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 24/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 69A

NFAC, the assessee filed appeal with a delay of 84 days. With reference to the belated filing of the appeal, while seeking for condonation of delay, the assessee filed his submissions before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC and explained as under: “The delay was not at all intentional or willful ... interest of justice.” However, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC did not consider the submissions of the assessee on the issue of condonation of delay of 84 days and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

Prathamika Krushi Pathina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha Nelaji, Kodagu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Madikeri

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

ITA 1865/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2021-22 M/S. Prathamika Krushi Pathina Sahakara Vs. Ito, Sangha Niyamitha Nelaji, Ward – 1, No.2776, Nelaji, Nelaji Madikeri, Madikeri. Kodagu – 571 214. Pan : Aagan 1004 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Lakshmi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 24.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80(2)(d)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Assessment Year is 2021-22. 2. There is a delay of 11 days in filing this appeal. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with a supporting affidavit of CEO of assessee society. I have perused the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay ... reasonable cause and no latches can be attributed to the assessee for belated Page 2 of 8 filing of this appeal. Hence, I condone the delay of 11 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case

Puttegowda Ravikumar, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysore

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

ITA 1776/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavputtegowda Ravikumar The Income Tax Officer-1(1) 201, Belvadi Post 21/16, 'Aayakar Bhavan' Vs. Koorgahaly, Mysore 570018 Residency Road, Nazarabad Pan – Aezpr9904H Mysore 570010 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Tharun Kothari, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.10.2024 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy S., A.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30.07.2024 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity & Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Himself Liable To Be Assessed To A Total Income Of Rs.52,96,021/- For The Impugned Assessment Year 2018-19 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Raised A Defect For Delay In Filing The Appeal, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 37Section 69

There was a delay of 760 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee did not file any petition for condonation of delay and also did not file any response to the notice issued by the CIT(A). Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without ... condoning the delay. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The learned A.R., during the course of hearing, submitted an affidavit from the Tax Consultant of the assessee stating that it was his email ID which was provided to the Tax Department for communication

Sunil Vishnu Gaikwad, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 42(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4506/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrisunil Vishnu Gaikwad V/S. Ito Ward 42(3)(4), बनाम 4/32, Century Colony, P B Mumbai Marg, Near Doordarshan C41-43, G Block Bkc, Worli, Worli, Gilban Area, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400030 Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ajepg5251G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad

Section 17(3)(i)Section 192Section 234CSection 244ASection 250Section 89(1)

appeal is delayed by 479 days and the assessee has furnished an application along with the affidavit explaining the reasons and requesting for condonation of delay. It has been submitted that the assessee was employed as labourer in maintenance department of M/s. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. drawing a salary ... days which was purely unintentional and due to genuine reasons. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby condone the delay of 479 days in filing of the appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was an employee of M/s. Century