← 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

Maulana Azad Alpsankhyank Arthik Vikas Mahamandal Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 4755/MUM/2023, ITA No

ITA 4751/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan & & Maulana Azad Alpasankhyank Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Arthik Vikas Mahamandal Maryadit 2(2)(3), Mumbai 2Nd Floor, D. D. Building, Shahid Room No. 542, Ayakar Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort, Mumbai – Bhavan, Maharshi Karve 400 023. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – Pan: Aadcm6528R 400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

three appeals, the assessee has filed appeal u/s. 250 of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A). After condonation of delay in each appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) issued notice of the appeal and 4- 5 opportunities were given to the assessee in each case to file its response

Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 56(3) Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 1674/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Rajendra Kumar Tripathi Vs. Ito 341, Heritage Tower, Sawan Ward- 56 (3) Cghs Ltd. Plot No.1, Delhi Sector-3, Dwarka, Delhi-110078 Pan No.Abppt7714C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate Sh. Shyam Sunder, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Raja Rajeshwari, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing: 08/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Nfac”] Vide Order Dated 12.02.2024 Pertaining To A.Y. 2019-20 & Arises Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2019 Under Section 144/148 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 [Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’].

Section 143Section 144Section 249(3)Section 5

have heard rival submission of the parties and issue- 6. in-dispute and perused the relevant material on record on the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We find that the delay has been caused mainly due to illness and the death ... assessee has the sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time limit. The Ld.CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and should have decide the appeal on merits. Accordingly, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing appeal before him and admit

Bijender Kumar, Greaer Noida vs. ITO, Noida

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

ITA 1672/DEL/2024[2012 13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Raghuraj Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282

were heard at length, the case records carefully perused. 5 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee has filed an application praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal stating that the assessee is a farmer, uneducated and due to ignorance the assessee was unable to file appeal ... applicability of a particular provision of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short]. 5. The ld. DR objected to the condonation of delay. 6. We find that there is a delay of 64 days which stands reasonably explained. Accordingly, we condone this delay and admit the appeal

Bijender Kumar, Greater Noida vs. ITO, Noida

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

ITA 1671/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Raghuraj Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282

were heard at length, the case records carefully perused. 5 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee has filed an application praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal stating that the assessee is a farmer, uneducated and due to ignorance the assessee was unable to file appeal ... applicability of a particular provision of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short]. 5. The ld. DR objected to the condonation of delay. 6. We find that there is a delay of 64 days which stands reasonably explained. Accordingly, we condone this delay and admit the appeal

Anil Kumar HUF, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 49(1), Civic Center

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

ITA 1573/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Deepak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused. 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee has filed an application praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal stating that the karta of the assessee Shri Anil Kumar is a cancer patient and was mentally disturbed in running ... there for treatment and managed to file the appeal with a delay of 18 days. 5. The ld. DR objected to the condonation of delay. 6. We find that there is a short delay of 18 days which stands reasonably explained. Accordingly, we condone this delay and admit the appeal

Bagwant Kishore Memorial Educational Society, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward Exemption 1(3), Delhi

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

ITA 3657/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 119Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

stating that neither the Ld. AO nor the CIT(A) are empowered by the statute to entertain the appellant’s application for condonation of delay of 235 days in filing Form 10B and the appellant has the option to approach the duely empowered authorities for condonation of the delay ... passed by the Ld. CIT(A), observed as under: “7.1 Further, Section 119 empowers the Board to issue orders and guidelines regarding the condonation of delay in compliance with any provision of the Act. Section 119(2) reads as follows: Section 119(2) (a) ... (b) the Board

DCIT (E) Circle-2(1), Delhi vs. National Internet Exchange of India, Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue being ITA no

ITA 1250/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singha.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18

Section 11Section 2(15)

noticed that the appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by 11 days. The Revenue has filed application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Learned DR reiterated the submissions made in the application. Having considered the reasons we are of the considered view that there was sufficient cause

Rajiv Kumar Khurana, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 36(6), New Delhi

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

ITA 43/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Us. The Assessee Had Filed An Affidavit & Stated That Due To Acute Weakness & Prolonged Illness, Appeal Could Not Be Completed & Filed Within Time. When This Was Rajiv Kumar Khurana Vs. Ito Confronted With The Ld. Dr, He Did Not Raise Any Serious Objections For Condonation Of Delay. Hence, We Are Inclined To Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal Of The Assessee For Adjudication.

Section 148Section 44A

within time. When this was Rajiv Kumar Khurana vs. ITO confronted with the ld. DR, he did not raise any serious objections for condonation of delay. Hence, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case

ACIT(E), Circle- 2(1), New Delhi vs. National Internet Exchange of India, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue being ITA no

ITA 911/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singha.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18

Section 11Section 2(15)

noticed that the appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by 11 days. The Revenue has filed application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Learned DR reiterated the submissions made in the application. Having considered the reasons we are of the considered view that there was sufficient cause

Baljinder Singh, Ambala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ambala

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for

ITA 199/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, JCIT
Section 282(1)

unjustified. 2. There is a delay of 1 day 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 application. The assessee has stated that he provided Form No. 36 duly signed

Geeta Chatrath, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 154/CHANDI/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Aug 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 249Section 250

appeal filed. The relevant findings of the ld. CIT(A) are reproduced hereunder for the sake of ready reference : “Decision on Condonation of Delay:- The facts of the case and the grounds raised by the appellant have been considered carefully. It is noticed that there is a delay in filing ... given in Form 35, it appears that the appeal is filed beyond the prescribed due date. Moreover, there has been no affidavit/application of condonation of delay filed by appellant regarding the delay in filing of appeal. Hence, considering no hardship or sufficient cause for delay in filing of this appeal

Shambhu Ghosh, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Siliguri

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

ITA 681/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Am Shambhu Ghosh Ito, Ward 1(3) H/166/N, Aaykar Bhavan, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road, Matigara, Siliguri, Vs. Siliguri, West Bengal-734001 West Bengal-734010 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afhpg5130M Assessee By : Shri Sujit Basu & Ms. Paromita Guha, Ars Revenue By : Shri Amitava Sen, Add. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sujit Basu &For Respondent: Shri Amitava Sen, Add. CIT DR
Section 144

file of Shambhu Ghosh; A.Y. 2017-18 the Addl./JCIT with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after considering the condonation of delay petition filed by assessee before learned CIT (A) and adjudicate the matter on the merits of the case. 03. On the other hand, the learned ... back the whole issue to the file of the learned Addl. / JCIT with a direction to consider such prayer made by assessee by condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him and adjudicate the matter on the merits of the case. The assessee also directed to appear before

Karishma Tie -Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-8(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 661/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Am Addl/Jcit (A)-10, Mumbai Karishma Tie-Up Private Limited Room No.321, Aaykar Bhavan 109, Park Street Kolkata-700016 Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadck3786D Assessee By : Shri Anand Muskara, Ar Revenue By : Shri Amitava Sen, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri Anand Muskara, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amitava Sen, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

learned CIT (A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh and decide the appeal on merit of the case by condoning such delay in filing the appeal before him. 05. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative did not object to such prayer made by the learned ... file of the learned CIT (A) with a direction to reconsider the issue challenged by the appellant / assessee before him after considering such condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before him and decide the appeal on merits of the case, the assessee is also directed

M/S. Skanda Land Promoters Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1217/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Skanda Land Promoters Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 188 Off Marathahalli Commissioner Of Orr, Income Tax, Panathur-Varthur Road, Central Circle – Pan, Varthur, 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 087. Bangalore. Pan: Aancs7826G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Jinita Chatterjee, Advocate
Section 133A

passed by Ld.CIT(A)-11, Bangalore for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is submitted that, the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 147 days in filing the appeal before him. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that, the assessee neither filed any Page 2 of 4 separate ... application for condonation of delay nor filed any affidavit to substantiate the reasons for such delay. He thus dismissed the appeal for want of limitation. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that in form

Ramesh Kumar Kothari, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hassan

ITA 1193/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A) & That The Order Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) Is An Ex-Parte Order. 2.1. It Is Also Submitted By The Ld.Ar That, The Present Appeal Filed Before This Tribunal Is With A Delay Of 54 Days & That The Assessee Has Furnished The Application For Condonation Of Delay Vide Its Affidavit Dated 17/06/2024. It Is Submitted In The Affidavit That Though The Assessee Received The Impugned Order By The Nfac On 26.02.2024 Through Online Portal, As The Assessee Was Otherwise Also In Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A) For Other

Section 51

present appeal filed before this Tribunal is with a delay of 54 days and that the assessee has furnished the application for condonation of delay vide its affidavit dated 17/06/2024. It is submitted in the affidavit that though the assessee received the impugned order by the NFAC on 26.02.2024 through ... contrary intention was brought on record by the revenue before this Tribunal. In our opinion there is sufficient cause and reasonable cause to condone the delay of 112 days as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported

Hindustan Marble & Granite, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1091/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyhindustan Marble & Granite Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Regd. Office: No.5, Lalbagh- Cr Building, Queens Rod Hosur Road, Wilson Garden Vs. Bengaluru 560001 Bangalore 560027 Pan – Aaafh8437Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 282

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the same. 2. The Ld. Commissioner erred by mechanically dismissing the appeal by not condoning the delay, ignoring the facts of the case and Affidavit furnished by the Appellant wherein the reason for the delay was explained. 2 Hindustan Marble & Granite ... ground that the sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal is not established. The ld A.R. drew our attention to the application for condonation of delay and affidavit filed before the CIT(A), which are part of the appeal bunch filed before us. 6. The learned D.R., on the other

The Path of Joy Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1744/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh(CIT. DR)
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

before the date of hearing.” 3. There is a delay in filing of appeal by 226 days. The assessee filed an affidavit with condonation of delay and explained the delay. The reason of delay is stated to be that the assessee was waiting for the registration of the trust under

Lintas Employees Family Planning Assistance Trust, Mumbai vs. Centralized Processing Income Tax Department, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1462/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250

claim of the Assessee. 3. We have heard the parties on the point of limitation and considered the claim of the assessee qua condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal. The reason submitted by the Assessee relates to the health condition of the Assessee’s President and oversight ... genuine, bonafide and unintentional and therefore 3 M/s. Lintas Employees Family Planning Assistance Trust for substantial justice, we are inclined to condone the delay, however, subject to deposit of token amount of Rs.1100/- in the Revenue Department, within 30 days from the receipt of this order. 4. Coming

Bhattacharji Educational Trust, Meerut vs. CIT Exemption, Lucknow

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

ITA 1523/DEL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri P.S. Kashyap, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Ritu Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)

sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused. 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee has filed an application praying for condonation of delay of 130 days in filing the appeal. It was stated that the assessee has not filed appeal within 60 days as it was under ... Trust stating the above facts has already been placed on record. We find that the delay stands reasonably explained. Accordingly, we condone this delay and admit the appeal. 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an educational trust which came into existence

Sh. Saranjit Singh, Patiala vs. ACIT, Central Circle -2, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

ITA 384/CHANDI/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA and Shri Vir Sain Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

find that the Assessees were prevented by genuine reasons for delayed filing of the appeals. The ld. DR did not object to this condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and we proceed to hear the appeals on merits. Since the facts and issue involved in the captioned appeals