← 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

Vijaya Durga Penumala, Rajahmundry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 249/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.249/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Vijaya Durga Penumala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 74-8-20, Siri Apartments-2, Ward-2(1), Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry, Rajahmundry. Andhra Pradesh – 533103. Pan: Cxdpp1606F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 31/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

filing of the appeal, the 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 affidavit which is as under: “……….. 2. Assessee was while going to her Counsel’s office to sign ... reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 3 84 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 84 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly

Vijaya Durga Penumala, Rajahmundry vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 238/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

filing of the appeals, the Ld. AR drew my attention to the affidavits filed by the assessee along with a petitions seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the affidavits, which are common in both the condonation petitions, as under: “1. ……….. 2. Assessee was while going ... reasonable and sufficient cause in filing these appeals beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 77 days. Therefore, I hereby condone the delay of 77 days in filing these two appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits in the following paragraphs

Vijaya Durga Penumala, Rajahmundry vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 237/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

filing of the appeals, the Ld. AR drew my attention to the affidavits filed by the assessee along with a petitions seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the affidavits, which are common in both the condonation petitions, as under: “1. ……….. 2. Assessee was while going ... reasonable and sufficient cause in filing these appeals beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 77 days. Therefore, I hereby condone the delay of 77 days in filing these two appeals before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits in the following paragraphs

Jami Pradhamika Vyavasayasharakara Parapathi Sangham Ltd., Vizianagaram vs. Income-Tax Officer, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 206/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 206/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Jami Pradhamika Vyavasaya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sahakara Parapathi Vizianagaram. Sanghamltd., Vizianagaram. Pan: Aabaj1927F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""ाथ" की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 69A

belatedly before the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC with a delay of 309 days. 2. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, did not condone the delay of 309 days in filing the appeal and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. While dismissing the assessees’ appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC observed ... appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him even though the appeal is filed within the time allowed from the date the assessee came to know about

Axon Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 538/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.538/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Axon Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.………....................…...……………....Appellant 36, Gopi Basu Lane, Kolkata – 700012. [Pan: Aacca7870M] Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata.…………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 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 17.10.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [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 Barred By Limitation Of 90 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Which Is Also Supported With The Affidavit Of The Director Of The Assessee Company, The Contents Of The Said Affidavit Are Reproduced As Under:

Section 147Section 250

Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The appeal is barred by limitation of 90 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, which is also supported with the affidavit of the director of the assessee company, the contents of the said affidavit

G. N. Buildev Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), New Central Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 867/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: Shri Tanuj Agarwal AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 145Section 69a

Bench noticed that there is delay of 158 days in filing the appeal for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that the assesee neither received intimation of order passed through Mobile SMS nor through email nor physically and thus the appellate passed

Sri. Suresha Chikkajala Ramakrishnappa, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 866/BANG/2024[2013-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2013-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 249

assessee against order dated 25.03.2024 of the CIT(Appeals)-15, Bangalore, for the AY 2013-14 challenging the ex-parte order for not condoning the delay in filing Page 2 of 12 appeal and further contesting the assessment completed u/s. 153C of the Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts ... delayed by 265 days and after considering the submissions of the assessee which are reproduced in his order regarding condonation of delay and relying on various judgments, he did not condone the delay in filing appeal and dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. Aggrieved from

Gomaram Choudhary, Rajasthan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 822/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri.Vishwa Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 69

submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal by 377 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal belatedly in terms of sec.253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, along with an Affidavit stating therein that ... brother never communicated either the receipt of the notice or the appellate order for the impugned assessment year, and accordingly, prayed to condone the delay in filing the appeal belatedly by 377 days. The learned AR of the assessee further submitted that the delay is unintentional and no benefit

Vinit Vijay Kumar, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, Mumbai (Now DCIT, Circle 17(1), 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 552/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vinit Vijay Kumar, Acit, Central Circle-13, (Now 35 Shreyas, 180 Madam Cama Dcit, Circle 17(1), Mumbai), Vs. Road, Nariman Point, G Block Bkc, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020. Complex, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacpv 9310 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Dharmesh Shah
Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 250

erred in law and in facts in not condoning the The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in not condoning the delay in filling the appeal and dismissing the appeal in limine. delay in filling the appeal and dismissing the appeal in limine. delay in filling ... submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has ground No. 2 of the appeal and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the appeal and dismiss the appeal not condoned the delay in filing the appeal and dismiss the appeal not condoned the delay

Aar Fin Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 12(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2977/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 250

years 4 months and 19 days in filing of the instant appeal. The Assessee by filing a petition dated 28.05.2024 for condonation of delay along with affidavit dated 16.05.2024 has submitted that the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal filed by the Assessee vide order dated ... factual aspects. Considering the reasoning for delay occurred as sufficient cause, we, for the substantial justice and for just decision, are inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 2 years 4 months and 19 days is condoned in filing the instant appeal. 4. Now coming to the merits

Angel Xpress Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1807/MUM/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2024-25

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, D.R
Section 5Section 80G(5)

delay occurred in fact was neither deliberate nor malafide but based on the aforesaid reason. Therefore the Hon’ble Tribunal is requested to condone the delay which is otherwise meager. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Appellant qua condonation of delay. We have given thoughtful ... rival claims of the parties. We also do not find any material or reason to controvert the claim of the Appellant qua condonation of delay, which is otherwise meager, hence the delay is condoned. 3. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the Appellant was granted provisional

St Johns Marthoma Syrian Church, Mira Road vs. CIT Exemption of Income Tax - Pune, Pune

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1502/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 12A

appeal, as and when the need arises/at the time of hearing.” 2. During the course of hearing, the appellant filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing this appeal and the main reason for filing the appeal with a delay of 60 days, is change in office bearers

M/S Apco Yarn (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Director Commissioner of Income Tax -4(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1314/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250

outset, we observe that there is a delay of 209 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the Assessee vide application for condonation of delay has submitted that business activities of the company has been completely closed down for the last 5-7 years and all the employees ... They only came to know about the impugned order when they received the demand notice and therefore your honour is requested to condone the delay which is unintentional and beyond the control of the Assessee. 3. The Ld. D.R. on the contrary refuted the claim of the Assessee and submitted

Gamila Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Nafc, Delhi

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

ITA 4718/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Narender Kimar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 Gamila Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Nfac, Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

necessity so arises.” 2. There was delay in filing this appeal before the ITAT by 304 days. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along with affidavit dated 07.06.2024. It is reported that ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order for non-prosecution ... assessee submitted that because of the above reason the appeal could not be filed within stipulated time and pleaded to condone the delay of 304 days in filing the appeal. 3. After hearing both the sides and considering the aforesaid fact as elaborated in the affidavit and discussed above

Rahul Chandrakant Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals are allowed in accordance with the above direction

ITA 4513/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi, CA &For Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153Section 153A

INSC 885 Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through L.Rs. and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (09.10.2023 - SC): MANU/SC/1098/2023 that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability ... founded on public policy, and that some lapse on the part of a litigant, by itself, would not be sufficient to deny condonation of delay as the same could cause miscarriage of justice. The expression sufficient cause is elastic enough for courts to do substantial justice. Further, when substantial justice

B R Hospital and Resarch Institute, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-Exemption 1(3), Delhi

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

ITA 1336/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 10BSection 11Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 37

Ahmedabad ITAT) relied by ACIT(A) was overruled by Gujrat High Court Reported in [2023 (3) TMI 1374 - Gujarat High Court) stating that condonation of delay by CIT(E) is only an additional remedy. (Pages 1-3 of case law compilation) Filing of Audit Report u/s 10B was directory ... under:- “1. A perusal of the section itself shows that the first appellate authority has been specifically excluded from the power to condone any delay u/s 119(2)(b). 2. Further, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Ahmedabad) in the case of Association of Indian Panel board Manufacturer

Raj Kumar, Manali vs. Income Tax Officer, Kullu

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

ITA 20/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Us In Terms Of Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056199571(1) Dt. 18/09/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. Factual Matrix 2. The Ld. Ao Vide Order No. Itba/Ast/S/144/2019-20/1022831422(1) Dt. 21/12/2019 Has Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 35,38,840/- Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Assessee Being Aggrieved By The Aforesaid Assessment Order Dt. 2112/2019 Had Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who By “Impugned Order” Has Dismissed The Same Exparte. 4. The Assessee Being Aggrieved By The “Impugned Order” Has Preferred Present Second Appeal Before Us & In Form No. 36 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dhgaram Vir, JCIt, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 44ASection 69A

Department. No leeway be given to the assessee. Findings and Conclusions 6. We hold that the assessee has shown reasonable cause for condonation of delay, accordingly delay is condoned. 6.1. After condoning the delay we notice that “Impugned order” is exparte as no opportunity in effective manner is noticed

The Salestax Employees Co.Op. Credit Society Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 612/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 16-10-2023 In Din

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep G Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 253(3)

filed belatedly by 111 days beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay in which it is stated that the assessee made an application u/s. 154 of the 1961 Act with ld. CIT(A) on 18.11.2023 , as there ... find any malafide on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal belatedly, and in the interest of justice, I condone the delay of 111 days and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits in accordance with I.T.A No. 612/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No. 5 The Sales

Regal Education Society, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Kolhapur

In the result, three appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 697/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.695, 696 & 697/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2020-21 Regal Education Society, The Income Tax 104, Swami Complex, V Officer(Exemptions), Bazarpeth, Chiplun, Ratnagiri, S Kolhapur. Maharashtra – 415605. Pan: Aabtr5097B Appellant Respondent Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), All Dated 04.03.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Act For A.Y.2018-19 & A.Y.2020-21. The Assessee In Ita No.695/Pun/2024 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Due To Delay In Filing Without Considering The Case On Merits.

Section 10Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 250Section 270A

that there was no sufficient cause for delay. 3.4 As per Form No.35 filed by the assessee, assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay along with Affidavit before the ld.CIT(A). It has been pleaded by the assessee that there was dispute between the trustees. Therefore, appeal could ... sufficient cause for filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) beyond the statutory time limit. Therefore, we direct the ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay. Hence, we set-aside all these three appeals to the ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The ld.CIT(A) shall give opportunity of hearing

Regal Education Society, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Kolhapur

In the result, three appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 696/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.695, 696 & 697/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2020-21 Regal Education Society, The Income Tax 104, Swami Complex, V Officer(Exemptions), Bazarpeth, Chiplun, Ratnagiri, S Kolhapur. Maharashtra – 415605. Pan: Aabtr5097B Appellant Respondent Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), All Dated 04.03.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Act For A.Y.2018-19 & A.Y.2020-21. The Assessee In Ita No.695/Pun/2024 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Due To Delay In Filing Without Considering The Case On Merits.

Section 10Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 250Section 270A

that there was no sufficient cause for delay. 3.4 As per Form No.35 filed by the assessee, assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay along with Affidavit before the ld.CIT(A). It has been pleaded by the assessee that there was dispute between the trustees. Therefore, appeal could ... sufficient cause for filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) beyond the statutory time limit. Therefore, we direct the ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay. Hence, we set-aside all these three appeals to the ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The ld.CIT(A) shall give opportunity of hearing