“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

Lal Jeevan Bhard, Lucknow vs. ITO, Lucknow

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

ITA 325/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Lal Jeevan Bhardwaj V. Ito 6(2) 448/119/33, Behind Kalyangiri Lucknow Mandir Chowk Nagariya 2 Anshik Lucknow Tan/Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

Registry that the appeal filed by the assessee was barred by limitation by 465 days. The assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay accompanied with an Affidavit and Medical Certificates. It was prayed that the delay caused in filing the appeal was not deliberate and was beyond ... same may be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits. 7. The ld. Senior Departmental Representative had no objection to the condonation of delay. 8. I have duly considered the issue of condonation of delay and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and specially noting that

Kashmiri Lal, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Kanpur

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

ITA 293/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Kashmiri Lal V. The Ito 126/33, Block Q Ward 2(2) Govind Nagar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Asarpl8577C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54F

noted that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 16 days. The assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal stating therein that the assessee handed over the order of the first Appellate Authority to the Counsel’s office for filing ... please be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits. 7. Per contra, the ld. Senior Departmental Representative had no objection to the condonation of delay. 8. I have duly considered the issue of condonation of delay and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and ITA No.293/LKW/2024

Shramik Vikas Sahkari Shrram Samvida Samiti Ltd., Kanpur vs. AO Circle 1(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/LKW/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2019-20 Shramik Vikas Sahkari V. The Assessing Officer Shrram Samvida Samiti Ltd, Circle 1(1)(1) 135-K-2, Nankari, Iit Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234FSection 80ASection 80P

either required to file the revised return or if time for revision was not available, make a claim before the competent authority for condonation of delay. The ld. CIT(A) observed that since the assessee had neither revised the return of income nor made any application for condonation of delay

Shri Manoj Sharma, Bareily vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bareily

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 393/LKW/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Aug 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2003-2004 Shri Manoj Sharma V. The Acit-1 S/O Shri J.S. Sharma Bareilly Swaley Nagar Bareilly Tan/Pan:Avcps7127B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29 08 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 143(3)

days in filing this appeal. Apparently, the assessee, for reasons best known to him, has not even filed any petition for condonation of delay. ITA No.393/LKW/2017 Page 3 of 3 7. Therefore, in view of the above cited facts, I deem it expedient to dismiss the appeal as un-admitted ... restoration of this appeal, if so advised, by filing an application as per the extant Rules and also accompanied by a petition for condonation of delay. 8. In the final result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/08/2024. [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:30/08/2024

Real Cargo Mumbai, Arvalli vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Modasa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 268/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad. This Appeal In Ita No.268/Ahd/2024 For Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Filed By The Assessee Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 25.09.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi U/S. 250 Of The Income- Tax Act,1961 , Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1056508501(1), Which Has In Turn Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 143(3) Read With Section 254 Of The Income-Tax Act 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Divatia ,Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav,CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 189(1)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 254Section 40

Counsel Shri S. N Divatia, drew our attention to the application for condonation filed by the assessee, praying for condonation of delay in filing this appeal belatedly with ITAT by the assessee beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act by 83 days. In the application filed ... assessee for condoning the delay, it is averred that the appellate order dated 25.09.2023 passed by ld. CIT(A) was e-communicated to the assessee on 25.09.2023 4 I.T.A No.268/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No. Real Cargo Mumbai , but the same was downloaded by the assessee from the IT Portal

Torrent Solargen Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 90/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Torrent Solargen Limited Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम “Samanvay”, 600, Circle- 4(1)(2), Vs. Tapovan, Amabawadi, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct0483G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Vartik Chokshi, Advocate अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. Dr 27/08/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee (Tsl) Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 08.09.2022 For The Assessment Year 2016- 17. 2. There Was A Delay Of 95 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reason For Delay. It

For Respondent: Shri Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb

Section 154Section 244A

affidavit of Shri Saurav Mashruwala has also been filed in this regard. The Revenue also did not have any objection to the condonation of delay. Considering the reason as explained by the assessee, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 3. The only ground taken by the assessee

Vinod Narayan Joshi, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT, -1, Vadodara

ITA 44/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 230 /Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 44/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Vinod Narayan Joshi, The Principal Af-6, Utopian Corner, Commissioner Of बिाम Nr. Green Wood Bunglows, Income Tax, Vs. New Alkapuri, Vadodara-1, Vadodara-390021. Vadodara.

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri H Phani Raju, CIT. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

section 147 of the Act were set aside with directions to make fresh assessments. 2. The assessee has also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing these appeals. Condonation of Delay 3. The appeals were filed with a delay of 131 days. The assessee submitted that the delay ... period due to the pandemic. 3.1 Considering these circumstances and the fact that the learned Departmental Representative (DR) did not object to the condonation of delay, the delay in filing these appeals is satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, the delay is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. Facts

Vinod Narayan Joshi, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT, -1, Vadodara

ITA 230/AHD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri H Phani Raju, CIT. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

The Icfai Society, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 661/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 The Icfai Society, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. (Exemptions), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaajt0214B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. (Appeared Through Virtual Mode) Revenue By: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2024 30.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 2(15)

charged against income. 10. That the order of the CIT (A) is bad in law and facts in arbitrarily rejecting the condonation of delay petition in filing Form 35 for following reason; The appeal has been already decided on merit through a speaking order. (ii) The CIT (A) rejected ... condonation of delay petition after 5 years at the time of disposal of appeal thus depriving the appellant of legal remedies against such order. (iii) The CIT (A) did not dispute the actual delay caused due to section 154 petition but rejected the condonation petition holding that the 154 petition

Sardar Jabasingh, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-14(1), Chennai

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

ITA 169/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. Shri Sardar Jabasingh, The Ito, No.253, Labour Colony, Non-Corporate Ward-14(1), Guindy, Chennai. Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Cayps 2516 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 44ASection 68

days in filing of the appeal. However, after perusal of the Affidavit filed by the assessee Shri Sardar Jabasingh :: 2 :: for condonation of delay and taking note of the contents of the same, we are inclined to condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised

Aagaz Samajik Vikas Sanstha, Jaipur vs. The CIT Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 810/JPR/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Aug 2024

Bench: Dr.S.Seethalakshmi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.809 & 810/Jpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year(S) : - Aagaz Samajik Vikas The Commissioner Of Sanstha, V Income Tax, 45A/69, Near Office Lane, S Exemption, Jaipur. Behind Rainbow Jewellers, Jagdish Colony, Ramgarh Mode, Jaipur – 302002. Pan: Aaeaa5124E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ajey Malik – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Jaipur Both Dated 25.02.2023. The Assessee In Ita No.809/Jpr/2023 Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal :

Section 12ASection 80G

ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue submitted as under : Aagaz Samajik Vikas Sanstha [A] 02. Further assessee has also filed application for condonation of delay wherein assessee has not submitted supporting documents of his plea of being abroad supported by copy of the relevant pages of the passport ... does not need any adjudication, hence dismissed. Aagaz Samajik Vikas Sanstha [A] 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Condonation of Delay : 6. The Assessee’s appeal before ITAT is delayed by 241 days. Assessee has filed condonation of delay application. It is claimed in the condonation

Aagaz Samajik Vikas Sanstha, Jaipur vs. The CIT Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 809/JPR/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Aug 2024

Section 12ASection 80G

Jnanavaahini Shikshana Samsthe Mysore, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward, Mysuru

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

ITA 899/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Keshav Dubeyjnanavaahini Shikshana Samsthe Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-Mysuru Near Big Banyan Tree Nh-212, T Narsipura Road, Alnahalli, Mysuru, Vs. Karnataka Pan – Aabtj5183A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri. Neeraj S Mitran, CAFor Respondent: Sri. V. Parithivel, JCIT

Section 11(1)Section 234Section 250Section 253(5)Section 68

upon.” 3 Jnanavaahini Shikshana Samsthe Mysore 2. At the outset, the ld. AR of the assessee drew our attention on the application for condonation of delay filed under section 253(5) of the Act along with the affidavit dated 13/06/2024 stating the reasons for condonation of delay and submitted that

Siri Sanjeevini Pattina Souharda Sahakari Niyamat, Sirwar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur

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

ITA 1387/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 5Section 801

delay of 520 days in filing the appeal for A.Y. 2017-18 before this Tribunal. In support of the application seeking condonation of delay, the Ld.AR has filed the affidavit stating as under: Page 3 ITA Nos. 1386 & 1387/Bang/2024 “APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED UNDER SECTION ... case of CIT & Another Vs. ISRO Satellite Center, in ITA No. 532 of 2008 and other batch of appeal order dated 28/10/2011 has condoned the delay of 5 years in filing the appeal before the CIT[A], the relevant observation is at para 28 page 72 of the order

Siri Sanjeevini Pattina Souharda Sahakari Niyamat, Sirwar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur

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

ITA 1386/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 5Section 801

Darshana Maharshi Udeshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 3258/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 69A

observe that there is a delay of 186 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the Assessee by filing an application for condonation of delay dated 20.06.2024 has submitted that though the Assessee on receipt of the impugned order immediately sent all the papers to his representative to pursue ... contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee. We have given thoughtful considerations to the submissions made in the application for condonation of delay. Though the Assessee has not mentioned the name or designation of the representative and therefore the reason for condonation of delay seems

Sha Hurgowan Anandji Desai Charities, Mumbai vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Benguluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 2807/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sha Hurgowan Anandji Desai Dy. Director Of Income-Tax, Cpc Charities, Bengaluru, 18, Bhaskar Lane, Bhuleshwar, Vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400002. Ward 2(3), 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaats 0405 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Ms. Vasanti Patel, &

Section 11

reason that neither the Assessing Officer not the Ld. CIT(A) was having any authority to condone having any authority to condone the delay in having any authority to condone filing the Form No. 10B. The Ld. CIT(A) has referred that under the filing the Form ... Circular No. 03/2020 dated 03.01.2020 and Circular No. 16/2022 Circular No. 03/2020 dated 03.01.2020 and Circular No. 16/2022 dated 19.07.2022 the power for condoning the delay has been dated 19.07.2022 the power for condoning the delay has been dated 19.07.2022 the power for condoning the delay has been delegated

Shree Pushkar Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-Ward 2(30, Mumbai

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

ITA 2714/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sandip S. Nagar, &For Respondent: 24/07/2024

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

whereby it authorized the whereby it authorized the Commissioners of Income Commissioners of Income-tax to admit applications tax to admit applications for condonation of delay in filing Form 9A of delay in filing Form 9A, Form 10, Form No. 10B & 10BB for AY Form 10, Form No. 10B & 10BB ... Central Board of Direct Taxes Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi the 17th July, 2022 New Delhi the 17th July, 2022 Sub: Condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Sub: Condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Sub: Condonation of delay under Section

Blue Rose Industrial Premises Co-Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA NO

ITA 2330/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

delay was caused due to failure of society’s manager to timely inform the society in respect of the impugned order. Prayed to condone the delay. The appellant has further submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the order dated 31.10.2023 passed in assessee ... days in filing the appeal and vehemently supported impugned order on merits. 10. We notice that appellant has filed an application for the condonation of delay on the ground that though the impugned order was received by the assessee on 14.08.2023 but the appeal could not be filed within limitation

Blue Rose Industrial Premises Co-Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA NO

ITA 2329/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)