← 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

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

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

ITA 695/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

M/S. Kuber Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT(OSD), Ward- 2(3), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1371/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1371/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11 M/S Kuber Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd……………....................…...……………....Appellant 16, Gandhi House, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 8Th Floor, Kolkata-13. [Pan: Aacck6127H] Vs. Acit(Osd), Ward-2(3), Kolkata.………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanket Joshi, Ca, 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 30, 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 25.05.2023 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 Time-Barred By 142 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Was Not Physically Served Upon The Assessee. The Order Was Sent On Email, However, The Said Email Was Not Noticed By The Assessee, Therefore, The Assessee Did Not Come To The Knowledge Of The Passing Of The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A). The Passing Of The Order Of The Cit(A) Came To The Knowledge Of The Assessee Only On October 2023. Thereafter, The Assessee Regularly Approached His Consultant To File The Appeal, However, The Consultant Was Busy In Return Filing Activity & Did Not File The Appeal. Thereafter, The Assessee

Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 250

Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The appeal is time-barred by 142 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been pleaded that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was not physically served upon the assessee. The order

A-Kal Televerse Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 538/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri. Navaneeth N Kini, CAFor Respondent: Sri. Guru Kumar S, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(ii)

computation of disallowance u/s 14A.” 3. Before going into the merits of the case, first we proceed with the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. We find that there is delay of 33 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee ... filed an application for condonation of delay stating that the Director of the company, Dr. Arjun Kalyanpur was overseas and returned to India only on 16th March, 2024. Thereafter, the appeal documents were discussed with him and got signed. In support of his claim, copy of passport along with entry

Lalit Kumar Mohanlal Jain, Mumbai vs. Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3026/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalito, Ward 20(2)(4) Lalitkumarmohanlaljain, Vs. Piramal Chambers, 1401/C, Lalbaug, Gundechha Garden, Mumbai-400012. Dattaram Khamkarmarg, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai -400012. Pan/Gir No. Aabpj0792M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

delay of 51 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld.DR has no specific objections. 2 Lalit Kumar Mohan Jain, Mumbai Accordingly, we condone

Aman Chambers Premises Co-Op Soc Ltd, Charni Road Mumbai vs. The Ass. Director of Income Tax Bengaluru, Bengaluru

In the result, ITA No. 2077/MUM/2024, ITA No

ITA 2080/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri.Narendra Kumar Billatya & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 249(2)Section 250

each appeal was of the opinion that the assessee has failed to show any sufficient and reasonable cause of Condonation of Delay and accordingly the appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable and hence not admitted. . We have heard the Ld. AR on behalf of the appellant who argued that ... 2078/Mum/2024: A.Y. 2021-22 Aman Chambers Premises Co-op. Soc. Ltd. and has dismissed the application seeking the condonation of delay due to covid pandemic in the relevant assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, and also that the accountant of the assessee has expired due to covid

Aman Chambers Premises Co-Op Soc. Ltd., Charni Road Mumbai vs. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, ITA No. 2077/MUM/2024, ITA No

ITA 2078/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri.Narendra Kumar Billatya & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 249(2)Section 250

each appeal was of the opinion that the assessee has failed to show any sufficient and reasonable cause of Condonation of Delay and accordingly the appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable and hence not admitted. . We have heard the Ld. AR on behalf of the appellant who argued that ... 2078/Mum/2024: A.Y. 2021-22 Aman Chambers Premises Co-op. Soc. Ltd. and has dismissed the application seeking the condonation of delay due to covid pandemic in the relevant assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, and also that the accountant of the assessee has expired due to covid

Aman Chambers Premises Co-Op Soc Ltd., Charni Road Mumbai vs. The Assitant Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, ITA No. 2077/MUM/2024, ITA No

ITA 2077/MUM/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri.Narendra Kumar Billatya & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 249(2)Section 250

each appeal was of the opinion that the assessee has failed to show any sufficient and reasonable cause of Condonation of Delay and accordingly the appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable and hence not admitted. . We have heard the Ld. AR on behalf of the appellant who argued that ... 2078/Mum/2024: A.Y. 2021-22 Aman Chambers Premises Co-op. Soc. Ltd. and has dismissed the application seeking the condonation of delay due to covid pandemic in the relevant assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, and also that the accountant of the assessee has expired due to covid

Mohammed Hafeez Qureshi, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 512/HYD/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.512/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Mohd.Hafeez Qureshi Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(1) Pan:Aaepq1034C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Momina Alam राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Reema Yadav, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate Momina AlamFor Respondent: : Smt. Reema Yadav, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

find that there is a delay of 114 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay in filing of the appeal was filed which is Page ... considered view that the reasons given by the appellant due to medical reasons is reasonable and bonafide. Thus, we condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual

Ikon Overseas Private Limited, Bhopal vs. ITO 2(5), Bhopal

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

ITA 54/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

delay of 41 days in quantum appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the Director of the assesse company. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that Mr. Ram Kumar ... relevant point. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the reasons explained by the assessee in the application for condonation of delay. We find from the medical reports filed by assesse that the wife of the Director of the assessee was undergoing treatment since December 2023 during

Ikon Overseas Private Limited, Bhopal vs. ITO 2(5), Bhopal

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

ITA 53/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

delay of 41 days in quantum appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the Director of the assesse company. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that Mr. Ram Kumar ... relevant point. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the reasons explained by the assessee in the application for condonation of delay. We find from the medical reports filed by assesse that the wife of the Director of the assessee was undergoing treatment since December 2023 during

Balaji Phosphates Limited, Indore vs. Dcitacit 1(1) Indore, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 209/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibalaji Phosphates Limited, Dcitacit 1(1), 305, Utsav Avenue, Indore Vs. 12/5 Ushaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcb5654R Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234Section 40

prevented from any sufficient cause in delay in filing of appeal even appellant filed with appeal memo to the application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Addl Commissioner of Income Tax/JCIT (Appeals) has erred in not providing appropriate opportunity ... principle of natural justice because the assessee was not granted any reasonable opportunity of being heard against non-considering to application of condonation of delay. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, AddI CIT/ICIT(A) and Learned AO, has erred in making adjustments in the returned Income even

Mansoor Mirza, Jaora vs. ITO, Neemuch

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

ITA 153/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimansoor Mirza Ito 110, Chhawani Jaora Dewas Vs. Jaora (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Angpm9218H Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024

Section 144Section 69

Delhi for A.Y.2011-12. 2. There is a delay of 50 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the impugned order

Radha Maheshwari, Ujjain vs. Income Tax Officer, Dewas

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

ITA 517/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniradha Maheshwari Ito 4 Bahadurganj, Khidwdkar Dewas Marg Behind Civi Hospital Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Azcpm1050B Assessee By Ms. Sonam Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .07.2024

Section 68

grounds of appeal: “1. Hon CIT has dismissed the appeal due to delay in filling the appeal by the assessee and application for condonation of delay has not denied by the Hon CIT. ITANo.517/Ind/2023 Radha Maheshwari 2. Ld AO has made an addition of Rs. 1268550 as an unexplained cash ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee as invalid being barred by limitation whereas the assesse filed the application for condonation of delay which was attached to the form 35 but due to change of portal it was not available with the CIT(A) as stated in the impugned order

Kalu Jat, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Ajmer

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

ITA 747/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon,Ble Itat, Jaipur Bench On 07.12.2023 Against The Ex-Parte Order Passed By Ld. Cit(Appeals) Nfac, New Delhi, Order Dated 07.09.2023. The Appeal No. Is Ita No. 747/Jpr/2023. 2. The Present Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 31 Days. 3. That The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Was Due To Mistake Of Earlier Local Counsel Of Appellant, As He Did Not Filed The Appeal Well Within The Specified Time. 4. Then, On 06.12.2023, Appellant Engaged A New Counsel Of Jaipur, Ca Raghuveer Singh Poonia & On The Very Next Day The New Counsel Filed The Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat, Jaipur Bench. 5. Therefore, The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Was Due To Mistake Of Earlier Counsel Of Appellant, Which Can Be Treated As Reasonable Cause & Bonafide Mistake Of Appellant In Good Faith In Filing The Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat, Jaipur Bench. In View Of Above Submission Your Good Self Are Request That Kindly Consider This As Reasonable Cause To Condone The Delay & Kindly Admit The Appeal. So The Substantial Justice May Be Delivered To The Appellant." 2.2 The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Appearing In This Appeals Submitted That The Delay Of 31 Days Is On Account Of Due To Mistake Of Earlier Local Counsel Of The Assessee, As He Did Not Inform The Assessee In Proper Time & Subsequently The Assessee Engaged A New Counsel On The Very Next Day & Filed The Appeal. Considering The Various Judicial Precedent Where In The Courts Has Considered That Change Of The New Counsel Is A Reasonable Reason & Has Considered The Delay. Even The Hon'Ble 3

Section 148ASection 56(2)(i)Section 69

days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers:- "1. That the present appeal was filed before Hon,ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench on 07.12.2023 against the ex-parte order passed ... ITAT, Jaipur Bench. In view of above submission your good self are request that kindly consider this as reasonable cause to condone the delay and kindly admit the appeal. So the substantial justice may be delivered to the appellant." 2.2 The ld. AR of the assessee appearing in this appeals

M/S. Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 531/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

appeals before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. filed a condonation petition along with an affidavit for both the assessment years praying for condonation of delay. It was explained that due to the assessee’s counsel who has prepared the appeal papers was fell sick and it took extra 4 days ... find that there is a good and sufficient reason in filing the appeals for these assessment years belatedly by 4 days. Hence, we condone the delay for 4 days in both the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. ITA No.532/Bang/2024 (AY 2015-16): 2. Facts of the issue

Srinivasan Narayanan, Hosur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1012/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT-DR

arises out of consolidated order passed by Ld.CIT(A) dated 19.03.2024. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeals filed against the orders passed in quantum and penalty appeals. Page 2 of 12 ITA Nos. 1008 to 1012/Bang/2024 ... issues to be considered on merits by admitting the appeals of the assessee. 7. On the contrary, the Ld.DR vehemently opposed the condonation of delay as necessary benefit has been provided by the Ld.CIT(A) by excluding the covid period. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides

Srinivasan Narayanan, Hosur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1011/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT-DR

arises out of consolidated order passed by Ld.CIT(A) dated 19.03.2024. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeals filed against the orders passed in quantum and penalty appeals. Page 2 of 12 ITA Nos. 1008 to 1012/Bang/2024 ... issues to be considered on merits by admitting the appeals of the assessee. 7. On the contrary, the Ld.DR vehemently opposed the condonation of delay as necessary benefit has been provided by the Ld.CIT(A) by excluding the covid period. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides

Srinivasan Narayanan, Hosur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1009/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT-DR

arises out of consolidated order passed by Ld.CIT(A) dated 19.03.2024. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeals filed against the orders passed in quantum and penalty appeals. Page 2 of 12 ITA Nos. 1008 to 1012/Bang/2024 ... issues to be considered on merits by admitting the appeals of the assessee. 7. On the contrary, the Ld.DR vehemently opposed the condonation of delay as necessary benefit has been provided by the Ld.CIT(A) by excluding the covid period. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides

Srinivasan Narayanan, Hosur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1008/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT-DR

arises out of consolidated order passed by Ld.CIT(A) dated 19.03.2024. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeals filed against the orders passed in quantum and penalty appeals. Page 2 of 12 ITA Nos. 1008 to 1012/Bang/2024 ... issues to be considered on merits by admitting the appeals of the assessee. 7. On the contrary, the Ld.DR vehemently opposed the condonation of delay as necessary benefit has been provided by the Ld.CIT(A) by excluding the covid period. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides

Hansrajbhai Mohanbhai Virani, Surat vs. ITO, (A.O.), Ward-2(3), Thane (W)

In the result, appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 815/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

appeal." 3. The registry informed us that the appeal is in filing delay for 8 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay and the reason for delay is explained. The Id. DR has not made any objection to condonation of delay. So, the delay for 8days