← 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

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 3764/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

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

Sailee Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-12(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2741/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 250

delay in filing the appeals before the Hon’ble Sailee Developers Pvt Ltd .Mumbai Tribunal and the assesse has filed an application/affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned are reasonable and the Ld.DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeals. 3.Since

Sailee Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-12(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2738/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 250

delay in filing the appeals before the Hon’ble Sailee Developers Pvt Ltd .Mumbai Tribunal and the assesse has filed an application/affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned are reasonable and the Ld.DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeals. 3.Since

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dlf Midtown Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appellant assessee is allowed and appeal of Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2859/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

04/07/2024 Date of Pronouncement 06/09/2024 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: 1. The appeal by the assessee and application for condonation of delay of 464 days in filing appeal as well as appeal by Department of Revenue are against order dated 30/06/2022 passed by Learned Commissioner ... deck of documents, could not file appeal within period of limitation. Learned Authorized Representative for the assessee had no objection to the condonation of delay of 646 days in filing of appeal. The Explanation on behalf of Appellant Department of Revenue does not smack of malafides as the appellant

Jvd Tour and Travels Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 13(4), Delhi

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

ITA 2266/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy

Section 143(3)

30th March, 2024,as per law there is no delay in preferring the instant appeal before us and hence no application for Condonation of Delay has been filed. Relevant to mention that an affidavit affirmed by one Shri Yeshu Gupta, the Director of the assessee company, attested on 2nd September

Dlf Midtown P. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appellant assessee is allowed and appeal of Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1963/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

04/07/2024 Date of Pronouncement 06/09/2024 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: 1. The appeal by the assessee and application for condonation of delay of 464 days in filing appeal as well as appeal by Department of Revenue are against order dated 30/06/2022 passed by Learned Commissioner ... deck of documents, could not file appeal within period of limitation. Learned Authorized Representative for the assessee had no objection to the condonation of delay of 646 days in filing of appeal. The Explanation on behalf of Appellant Department of Revenue does not smack of malafides as the appellant

Aashiyana Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S Aashiyana Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Buildmartpvt. Ltd. Income Tax, B-20, 21, 22, Central Circle, Noida Sector-16, Noida, Uttar Pradesh - 201301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagca1134L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sujit Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

Central Circle, Noidafor Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The appeal is barred by limitation and therefore, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal before us wherein it appears that consequential to the Assessment Order passed by the DCIT, all bank accounts were seized ... been reiterated before us by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee which seems to be true and sufficient to grant relief in condoning the delay in preferring the appeal filed by the assessee before us. Hence, the delay is condoned. 3. The assessee before us has challenged the impugned

Sukhwinder Singh, Ambala Cantt vs. Income Tax Officer, Ambala

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for

ITA 78/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amitoz Singh Kamboj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 249Section 250Section 68

have gained anything by filing his appeal late before the ld. CIT(A). In these facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in the appeal filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), as the assessee was visited by sufficient cause for the delay incurred ... issued any notice in this regard to the assessee and has refused to condone the delay. The ld. CIT(A), further, has also not decided the merits of the case. Accordingly, the delay of 55 days occurred in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned. 6. On scrutiny

Sanjay Balvantlal Khatri, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 988/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 988/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Sanjay Balvantlal Khatri The Ito बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 962, Pedhivalo Khancho, Ward-7(2)(2), Ahmedabad Vs. Jahapanah Ni Pole, Kalupur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amapk6283D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri M. K. Patel, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05/09/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Addl./Jcit(A)-9, Mumbai, (In Short ‘The Jcit(A)’), Dated 27.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds In This Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147

Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has taken following grounds in this appeal: Rejection of Appellant's request for condonation of delay in filing of “I. Appeal 1. The ld. JCIT (Appeals) has grievously erred in rejecting the appellant's application requesting condonation of genuine, bonafide and non-deliberate ... observing that the limitation harshly affects the rights of a party and that a pedantic approach must not be adopted while condoning the delay in filing of appeal and explanation of each day's delay should not be taken literally, proceeded to reject the appellant's application. 2. The appellant

Shri Ahir Samaj Vikas Trust, Bhavnagar vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemp.), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1045/AHD/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2024

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen

For Appellant: Mr. Mohit Balani,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)

motive in filing this appeal belatedly with ITAT. The ld. CIT-DR fairly submitted that the department has no serious objection to the condonation of delay in filing these two appeals belatedly by the assessee. Under these facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice ... No.1045/Ahd/2023 A.Y.:NA Page No. Shri Ahir Samaj Vikas Trust assessee in filing this appeal belatedly, and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay w.r.t. this appeal and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits in accordance with law. Reference is drawn to the decision

Warvandi Vividh Karyakari Sevasahakari Society Ltd., Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward 2, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 998/PUN/2024[20202-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld.NFAC with a delay of 90 days. The appellant society filed explanation praying for condonation of delay by stating that the delay had occurred due to the fact that the appellant society is situated in a village at a distance ... Thus, it was prayed before the NFAC that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. However, the ld. NFAC had refused to condone the delay by holding that the appellant cannot sleep over the issue in filing the appeal for more than 120 days after the assessment order

Bharat Keshavlal Shah, Pune vs. Dy. CIT Circle 5, Pune

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

ITA 799/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.799/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bharat Keshavlal Shah, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. 27, Bharat Pushpa, Sujay Garden, Mukundnagar, Pune- 411037. Pan : Adxps3821M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Jha Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Assessee Requests For Condonation Of Delay Of 62 Days In Filing The Appeal Since There Was A Reasonable Cause On The Part Of The Assessee In Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee For Want Of Prosecution On The Ground That The Assessee Had Not Filed Any Submissions & Hence Was Not Interested In Pursuing The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jha
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 56(2)(vii)

/NFAC for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The assessee requests for condonation of delay of 62 days in filing the appeal since there was a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing the appeal within ... appeal” 3. There is a delay of 62 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an application praying for condonation of delay along with affidavit, mentioning the reasons which caused the delay in filing of this appeal. The ld. DR raised no serious objection to the prayer

Sai Refinery, Parwanoo vs. DCIT, Parwanoo

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for

ITA 707/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 37(1)Section 70Section 80I

days, as pointed out by the Registry, in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay occurred in filing the present appeal. The assessee has stated that all the notices issued by the Income Tax Department

Sujatabai Shesherao Bansode, Latur vs. ITO, Ward 4, Latur

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

ITA 950/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.950/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sujatabai Shesherao Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Latur. Bansode, Bhim Nagar Atp & Tq Ahmedpur, Latur- 413515. Pan : Aplpb6172Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] On The Facts & In The Circumstances The Learned Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Appeal On The Ground That The Reasons For Delay Are Not Found To Be Satisfactory. 2] The Learned Cit(A) Has & On Facts In Not Appreciating That The Reasons For Delay Were Beyond The Control Of The Appellant & Were Genuine For Which The Delay Ought To Have Be Condoned & Appeal Ought To Have Decided On Merits.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 96

appeal :- “1] On the facts and in the circumstances The Learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay in filing appeal on the ground that the reasons for delay are not found to be satisfactory. 2] The learned ... preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC 3 belatedly and the same was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without condoning the delay. It is this first appeal order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. We have heard learned counsels from both

The Sirur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Pune vs. ACIT, Exemtion Circle, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 609/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Trust in ITA No.3533/Mum/2023 order dated 07.05.2024 wherein the Tribunal under identical situation allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee and also condoned the delay caused in filing of Form 10B. On the basis of above, ld. AR requested before the Bench to direct the CPC to allow ... revenue authorities. Considering these aspects, CBDT 8 firstly came up with a Notification dt. 03/01/2020 authorising the Commissioners to admit applications of condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10B for Assessment Year 2018-19 and subsequent Assessment Years, where there is a delay of up to 365 days. Subsequently

Shri Gajanan Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ajara, Kolhapur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES

ITA 1192/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Akhilesh Srivastava [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

NFAC on 25/04/2023 admittedly with a delay of 675 days & 146 days. The appeal admittedly was filed accompanying therewith a petition for condonation of delay stating therein that the electronic/soft copies of orders were communicated by the Revenue to an email address belonging to erstwhile tax consultant

Shri Gajanan Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ajara, Kolhapur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES

ITA 1191/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Akhilesh Srivastava [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

NFAC on 25/04/2023 admittedly with a delay of 675 days & 146 days. The appeal admittedly was filed accompanying therewith a petition for condonation of delay stating therein that the electronic/soft copies of orders were communicated by the Revenue to an email address belonging to erstwhile tax consultant

Sri Laxminarsimha Swamy Temple, Nalgonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 738/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.738/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sri Laxmi Narsimha Vs. Income Tax Officer Temple Nalgonda (Exemption) Ward 1(2) Pan:Aahas4698G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate T Chaitanya Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate T Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: : Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 143(3)

investment u/s 11(5) of the Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appellant has also filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing Form 10 before the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) New Delhi on 27/06/2024 and said petition is pending for disposal. Therefore ... aside to the file of the Assessing Officer and to decide issue after disposal of petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. 6. The learned DR, on the other hand, referring to the application filed by the assessee submitted that the appellant itself has admitted income of Rs.47

Sanjay Awathare, Maharashtra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 494/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR
Section 132ASection 69A

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 the ITA No.494/Hyd/2024 2 Chartered Accountant to whom the work of filing the appeal ... 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 21 days. 3. After considering the totality of facts we hereby condone the delay of 21 days in filing of the present appeal

Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 408/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.408/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd………...........………………....Appellant 8/1/B, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata – 700027. [Pan: Aabcp8017C] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata.…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nitesh Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samaddar, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 04, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.02.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 20, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By Two Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed. Considering The Shortness Of Delay, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned.

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 250

Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The appeal is time barred by two days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the shortness of delay, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Though the assessee in this appeal