← 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

Nimshaskiya Madhyanik Shaley Karamchari Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Wardha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Wardha

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 156/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek KumarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(d)

While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has filed an application dated 29/05/2023, requesting the Bench for condoning the delay in filing the Nimshaskiya Madhyanik Shaley Karamchari Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. ITA no.156/Nag./2023 present appeal. In support of the application for condonation of delay ... delay in filing the appeal is due to reasonable cause. Balance of convenience is also in favour of the assessee. Consequently, we condone the delay of 22 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 4. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following

Shri Amardas Baba Sansthan Trust, Washim vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemption), Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/NAG/2021[NIL]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 2(15)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed application dated 26/04/2021, along with affidavit duly sworn in, seeking condonation of delay. The reason for the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is stated in its application to be that the assessee forgot ... getting him prepared the appeal file for presenting the same before the Tribunal. Para–1 of the application dated 26/04/2021, filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is reproduced below:– “1. Hon. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) by his order dt.30.09.2019 rejected Assessee's Application for exemption U/s.80G

DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. Emami Realty Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 967/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 967/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,...……Appellant Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 8Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Emami Realty Limited,……………………..……Respondent 13Th Floor, Acropolis 1858/1, Rajdanga Main Road, East Kolkata Township, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal [Pan: Aalcs5120P] Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit(Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 04, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: September 09, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is time barred by four days. The Revenue has filed an application for condonation of delay, wherein it has been submitted that actual delay is of only three days and this delay is happened on account of movement of file for necessary approvals ... Considering the short period of delay of three days, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 3. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the impugned order that penalty has been

Pee Kay Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 851/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Akkal Dudhwewala, ARFor Respondent: S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250

noticed that there is a delay of 4 days. The assessee has filed the petition dated 19.04.2024 along with appeal memo for condonation of delay along with affidavit of the director confirming that the facts stated in the enclosed condonation petition are true and correct to the best ... submit that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and therefore it is a fit case where the Hon'ble Tribunal should condone the delay for rendering substantive justice.” 4. The assessee has relied upon the decision in the case of Improvement Trust Vs. Ujagar Singh

Sh. Jagtar Singh, Alwar vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Alwar

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

ITA 994/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 24Section 249(3)Section 24BSection 80C

case of Satbarg Singh v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2 (3), Chandigarh [2015] 61 taxmann.com 46 (Chandigarh Trib.), it was held that in condoning the delay the appellate authority must be satisfied 5 Sh. Jagtar Singh vs. ACIT that there has been due diligence on the part of the appellant ... reason is accepted, then any one can take this plea. It has already been discussed above that for qualifying u/s 249(3) for condonation of delay, the appellant must show that he was diligent all along with taking appropriate steps and if he appears to be guilty of lapses

Om Prakash Agrawal HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaiupr, Jaipur

ITA 967/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Sarwan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: "1. In this connection it is submitted that the applicant is HUF and aregular IT assessee. In this assessment ... Land & Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has advocated for a very liberal approach while considering a case for condonation of delay. The following observations of the Hon'ble Court are notable: "The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section

Divya Agrofood Product Private Limited, Kota Rajasthan vs. DCIT, ACIT, Central Circle-2, Kota, Kota Rajasthan

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

ITA 851/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Maheshwari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147

days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay. The prayer of the assessee reads as under : “ The Ld. CIT(A), Faceless passed the ex-parte order & put on portal but no e-mail ... today & find the ex-parte order hence could not file the appeal as per date of order. We thus request your honour to condone the delay allow the appeal to be filed.” 3 Divya Agrofood Product Pvt. Ltd. 3.2 On the other hand, ld. DR objected to such a delay

Amros Engineering Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 4(4), Jpr, Jaipur

ITA 823/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 134A

delay of 42 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld.AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay mentioning therein reason that main director of the company Shri Rohit Srivastava expired on 12-01- 2024 (death Certificate enclosed) who used to deal

ACIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jyoti Scturtures Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1695/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajgopal & Shri Gagan Goyalacit R. No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... Appellant Vs. M/S. Jyoti Structures Limited, Andheri West, 6Th Floor, Valecha Chambers Mumbai- 400 053 Pan No. Aaacj2499R ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Jiwtani, Ld. AR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)

barred by 67 days and duly conveyed to the appellant. In response to this communication, the Ld. Departmental Representative filed an application for condonation of delay duly signed by the AO vide application dated 04.04.2024 with a covering letter dated 08.08.2024. We have considered the application for condonation of delay

Pyaro Devi Sewa Trust, New Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.28/Del/2024 is dismissed and ITA No

ITA 28/DEL/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024

Bench: Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice Before Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Bleshri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & And & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Hon’Ble Accountant Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra , Hon’Ble Accountant , Hon’Ble, Hon’Blemember Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

There is a delay of 418 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed application dated 4th June, 2024 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, supported by an affidavit. Explaining the reason of delay, assessee has submitted that it was due to the fact that Shri Brij ... Thus, he submitted that the delay in filing the appeal, being bona-fide, may be condoned. 6. Learned DR did not oppose condonation of delay. 7. Having considered the submissions of the parties, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly

Pyaro Devi Sewa Trust, New Delhi vs. CIT (Exemption), New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.28/Del/2024 is dismissed and ITA No

ITA 27/DEL/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024

Bench: Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice Before Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Bleshri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & And & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Hon’Ble Accountant Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra , Hon’Ble Accountant , Hon’Ble, Hon’Blemember Member

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

There is a delay of 418 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed application dated 4th June, 2024 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, supported by an affidavit. Explaining the reason of delay, assessee has submitted that it was due to the fact that Shri Brij ... Thus, he submitted that the delay in filing the appeal, being bona-fide, may be condoned. 6. Learned DR did not oppose condonation of delay. 7. Having considered the submissions of the parties, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly

Vinodbhai Ugardas Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5(2) Present Jurisdiction the Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 32/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Vinodbhai Ugardas Patel Dy.Cit, Cir.2(1)(1) Nirma House Vs Ahmedabad. B/H. Petrol Pump Ashram Road Ahmedabad 38009. Pan : Aavpp 9679 F. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathis Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A), Delhi Dated 26.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Read As Under:

For Respondent: Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR
Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 271Section 54F

affidavit of the accountant, Shri Suraj Darbar, stating the said fact was also filed before us. 4. The ld.DR objected to the condonation of delay arguing that the assessee had not adduced sufficient cause for the same. Considering the arguments made by both the parties before us, we consider ... case for condoning the delay noting sufficient cause adduced by the assessee for the same. Surely the assessee cannot be faulted for the delay in filing of appeal on account of inaction on the part of his accountant, who has taken responsibility for the same. Accordingly the delay is condoned

Ncl Buildtek Limited, Hyderabab vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 637/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A. Rajesh, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Srikant Reddy, SR-DR
Section 115J

appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the cause for delay, the counsel for the assessee drawn our attention towards the Affidavit filed along with condonation of delay application and contended that the delay has happened because of the ITA No.637/Hyd/2024 2 name change of company and change in Email ... hence assessee acted in bona-fide manner. The learned Department Representative strongly opposed the application filed by the assessee in respect of condonation of delay of 133 days. 3. After considering the totality of facts we hereby condone the delay of 133 days in filing of the present appeal

Gacm Technologies Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 517/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Gacm Technologies Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(4), Hyderabad (Formerly Known As Stampede Capital Limited) Hyderabad Pan : Aaacb7421K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, Ld.Ar Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Ld.Dr 05.09.2024 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Ld.DR
Section 14ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 5

submitted that there is a delay of 40 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in-limine, as it is filed beyond the period of limitation as provided by the Income ... prescribed period, within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act, read with section 5 of The Limitation Act. The application seeking condonation of delay in presenting the appeal is hereby rejected. Accordingly, the appeal is not admitted for adjudication on merits.” 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that

Manpreet Singh Lamba, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Vijayawada

ITA 292/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 292/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Manpreet Singh Lamba V. Income Tax Officer – Ward-3(3) 54-20-212, Jawahar Auto Nagar Central Revenue Buildings Iind Cross Road Bandar Road Vijayawada – 520007 Vijayawada – 520002 Ntr District, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aampl1721D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)

appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: - “1. The petitioner is the Appellant in the appeal mentioned above ... Page No. 2 I.T.A. No. 292/VIZ/2024 Manpreet Singh Lamba 6. It is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay and pray that the Appeal be admitted and taken on record, as otherwise great hardship and insufferable injustice will be caused to the petitioner herein

Challa Swathi, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 291/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 291/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Challa Swathi V. Income Tax Officer – Ward –1(3) D.No. 49-44-23/A Income Tax Office Near Maharani Parlour, Akkayapalem Direct Taxes Building Visakhapatnam – 530016 Mvp Double Road, Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Ahvpc1087D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] drew attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: - “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was passed

Coastal Engineering & Equipements (India) Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 138/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 138/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Coastal Engineering & Equipments V. Income Tax Officer – Circle 1(1) (India) Private Limited Income Tax Office 30-1-1/7, Flat No. 201 Pratyakshakar Bhawan Neeladri Complex Mvp Double Road, South Jail Road, Daba Gardens Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530020 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaecc3619C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250

appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: - “Petition for condonation of delay: - (Delay by 127 days) 1. Assessee company ... reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 127 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 127 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, assessee is a company filed

Amit Vyas, Ujjain vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1), Ujjain

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 510/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Amit Vyas, Income-Tax Officer, 103, Raghukul Apartment, 2(1), बनाम/ Kshpanak Marg, Ujjain Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aefpv4664L Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

service of the impugned order and the demand notice is 30.01.2018. There was delay of 669 days in filing this appeal. Grounds for condonation of delay given by appellant :- “That due to some unavoidable circumstances appeal could not be filed on time. Hence, it is requested that the appeal ... delay in filing the appeal can be condoned needs to be examined first before going into the merits of the appeal. 6.2 For condoning the delay, it must be proved beyond the shadow of doubt that the appellant was diligent and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever. The sufficient cause

M/S. Sarvadeivatha Education Trust(Regd), Kodagu vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemptions, Ward, Mysore

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

ITA 1396/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year : 2022-23

For Respondent: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia
Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(B)Section 12ASection 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 249

Page 2 of 9 evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal for the appellant's failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation ... order u/s. 119 in response to the petition filed by the assessee was passed on 02/02/2024, rejecting the assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B for the year under consideration. The order u/s. 119(2)(B) of the act r.w.Rule 17B of IT Rules

Vjtf Eduservices Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2019-20 and 2020-21 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3768/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chachedd, AR
Section 143(1)

additions made by VJTF Eduservices Ltd. the Assessing Officer (AO) on merits, is also contending the decision of the CIT(A) in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal in limine. 2. The assessee is a company engaged in education services. The assessee filed the return of income ... There was a delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) for both the AYs. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal for both the AYs accordingly. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. There is a delay of five days