“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

Manoj Kumar Motwani, Betul Mp vs. Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax Department NFAC

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 151/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2013-14 Manoj Kumar Motwani, Acit, Prop. Neelam Store, Nfac, Lally Chowk, Delhi बनाम/ Kothi Bazar, Vs. Betul (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaupm8830E Assessee By Shri Rakesh Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2024

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(5)Section 69A

appeal is delayed by 9 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp. On perusal of the application/affidavit, we observe that the assessee has stated that he is a cardiac patient ... Shri Manoj Kumar Motwani, Betul vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi ITA No. 151/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2013-14 Court, we take a judicious view, condone small delay of 9 days, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. The background facts leading to this appeal are such that the AO, on receipt of information

Premi Bai Uderani, Ajmer vs. ITO, WD-2(1), Ajmer

ITA 692/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A) Was Filed Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 21.12.2019 Relating To The Assessment Year 2017-

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal, C.A. (Th.V.C.)For Respondent: Shri A.S Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 68

filed after 108 days of the prescribed period of limitation. Thereupon, on 30.08.2024, the assessee came up with an application dated 17.05.2024 seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Firstly, this application seeking condonation of delay is taken up. 6. In the application, the assessee-applicant has alleged ... engaged by her, for the purpose of appeal before Learned CIT(A), we deem it a fit case to entertain the appeal, while condoning the delay in filing of the same. 7 Premi Bai Uderani vs. ITO The applicant has not brought on record any thing to suggest that from

Usha Sunder Premises Co-Operative Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2712/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt Renu Jauhri & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

order of the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, erroneously dismissed the appeal on the ground of rejection of petition for the condonation of delay, without going into the merits of the case, despite there being sufficient causes with the assessee for not filing the appeal in time as per section ... circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, erroneously rejected the petition for condonation of delay, attributing it to negligence or inaction rather than to the constraints faced by the assessee preventing the timely filing of the appeal within the 30-day limit

Usha Sunder Premises Co-Operative Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Direcotr of Income Tax, CPC, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2711/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt Renu Jauhri & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)

Trustees of Jnana Vistarak Sangh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2627/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bhandari a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Choughule (ADDL.CIT)DR

Section 10(1)Section 10(34)Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

erred in not appreciating the fact that Appeal filed in Form 35 online on 24.11.2018 along with condonation of delay by mentioning facts & circumstances of the case is in conformity with the para 3.6 of the Order passed ... aside the appellate order to the file of the Id. CIT(A) for hearing a fresh. We direct the learned CIT (A) to condone the delay and accept the petition and directed to pass the appellate order in merit. Needless to say, thatld. CIT (A) shall provide proper and adequate

Expertease (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO TDS 1(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1594/MUM/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Renu Jauhrii Ta. No. 1594/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2009-10) Expertease (India) Pvt Ltd, Vs Ito (Tds)-1(2)(2) 3102, Gokul Concorde, Roomno. 805, 8Th Flr, Thakur Village, Smt K G Mittal Kandivali (East), Ayurvedic Hospitalbldg Mumbai-400101. Charni Road, Mumbai-400002. Pan/Gir No. Aabce2693P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jotwani. Ar Respondent By Shri P.D Chougule. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A))- 59 Mumbai Passed U/Sec 201(1)/201(1A) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, It Was Brought To The Knowledge Of The Bench That, The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Electronically On 07.12.2018 & Emphasized On Facts & Relied On The Affidavit Of The Director Of The Assesse Company As Under:

Section 194Section 194CSection 194HSection 201

appeal for hearing, but was instructed to file another appeal, as the online appeal was not available in their record along with condonation of delay 14. I am instructed to file this Condonation of delay; 15. I hereby state that the appeal as filed in time through efiling mode. There ... appeal before the Honble Tribunal by the assessee company is supported with sufficient cause and a pragmatic approach should be considered for condonation of delay and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly the delay is condoned and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised the following grounds

Kavita Milind Rananaware, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos 1116 & 1117/Mum/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1117/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: ShriP.D. Choughule (Addl. CIT)SR DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271Section 68Section 69

order passed by the Id.CIT(A) has caused denial of justice to the appellant as the Id.CIT(A) has erred and failed to condone^ the delay caused, on account of reasonable cause and also failed to pass the order on the merit of the grounds of appeal on the basis ... order passed by the Id.CIT(A) has caused denial of justice to the appellant as the Id.CIT(A) has erred and failed to condone the delay caused on account of reasonable cause and also failed to pass the order on the merit of the grounds of appeal on the basis

Kavita Milind Rananaware, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos 1116 & 1117/Mum/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1116/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: ShriP.D. Choughule (Addl. CIT)SR DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271Section 68Section 69

Tapti Exports, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4456/MUM/2023[202-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tapti Exports Dy. Cit-19(3) Aw 5030 Tower A-Block G, Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra Kurla Coomplex, Bandra (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 051

For Appellant: Shri. Kirit S. Sanghvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. P.D. Chougule

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 250Section 44ASection 80I

Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Al Jamia Mohammediyah Education Society (supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has condoned the delay in filing Form 10B in which case, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case ... Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Panama Chemicals Works [2007] 165 Taxman 135 (MP) on identical facts has condoned the delay in filing Form 10CCB belatedly after filing the return of income but before 6 Tapti Exports vs. Dy. CIT completion of the assessment proceedings

Sachin Kanubhai Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(7), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 732/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.732/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sachin Kanubhai Thakkar The Income Tax Officer 4, Jivraj Park बनाम/ Ward-3(3)(7) Nr. Vejalpur Ahmedabad V/S. Near State Bank Of India Jivraj Park Ahmedabad – 380 051 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adupt 1202 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ….. ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/12/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Sachin Kanubhai Thakkar Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18 2

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 133Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal.” Condonation of delay 3. At the outset, we observed that there is a delay of 47 days in filing the appeal before us. The assessee has filed ... application for the condonation of delay along with an Affidavit stating the reasons for the delay. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading edible oil on a semi-wholesale and retail basis. The assessee had entrusted his tax filing formalities

Chovis Gam Sachidanand Medical and Research Centre Borsad, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-Exemption, Vadodara

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

ITA 520/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 11(2)Section 250

have allowed the accumulation of income of Rs. 1,59,36,361/-. 3.1 The appellant states that there is a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in presenting this appeal and the application with evidence will be produced during the course of hearing of this appeal, so that the delay ... delay of 458 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee before us. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, along with an affidavit in which it was submitted that the applicant is a public charitable trust which is duly registered under the Bombay Public

Brijeshkumar Mahendrakumar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1) (Old Ward) Ward-2(1)(2) (New Ward), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 297/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147

submitted that there is a delay of six days in filing the appeal for which the assessee has filed the request for condonation of delay. After going through the same, it appears that the delay is genuine and hence condoned. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that both the Assessing Officer

Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 124/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.124/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-1(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.123/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-2(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 24/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC belatedly with a delay of 273 days. 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal by observing as under: “2. There is no justification for delay in filing the appeal in the absence ... from March, 2022 to January, 2022. There was no extraordinary situation, which could justify the delay, hence the delay is not condoned. Once delay is not condoned, appeal remains unadmitted. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as unadmitted.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee

Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 123/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Sri Lakshmi Constructions, Nellore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

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

ITA 285/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.285/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Constructions, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 26-3-560, Sln Towers, Income Tax, Iv Floor, Bv Nagar, Mini Bypass Central Circle-1, Road, Nellore – 524004. Guntur. Pan: Abofs2978J (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

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: “ ……….. A. The appellant is unaware about the receipt of order since ... reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 15 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 15 days in 3 filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly

Mahankali Jyothi, Dublin, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

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: “1….. 2. Basically, I am a resident of USA. I have ... reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 149 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 149 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly stated

Kaushalya Singha, Darjeeling vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Siliguri

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

ITA 611/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 5Section 69A

assessee as it has been filed after a delay of 661 days and further, opined that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order, the present appeal has been filed. 2.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order thereby ... submitting that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him as sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee regarding the delay as the villagers are not convergent with the procedure and it took considerable time for the assessee

Durgamondap Samabay Krishi Unnayn Samati Ltd., ITO, Ward No-49(1), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward No- 49(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1153/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

noticed that there is a delay of 182 days in filing this appeal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay as under: “1. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 23.02.2023 for the AY: 2018-19 against an intimation order

Hari Priya, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 7(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1442/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1442/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Hari Priya, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No. 87, Old No. Y14, Iind Floor, Non Corporate Ward 7(3), 5Th Main Road, Y Block, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 040. [Pan: Alxph0519F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 284 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of Duly Notarized Affidavit Stating Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For 2

For Appellant: Shri I Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 24

year 2018-19. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 284 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay in the form of duly notarized affidavit stating reasons for the said delay and prayed for 2 I.T.A. No.1442/Chny/24 condonation of that delay

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Sunedison Solar Power India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1028/CHNY/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1028/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sunedison Solar Power India Private Corporate Ward 6(1), Room No. 704, Limited, No. 6J, Century Plaza,560- Wanaparthy Block, Aayakar Bhawan, 565, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 040 Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aascs6905K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of Four Days. The Revenue Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Condonation Petition & Upon Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That The 2

For Appellant: Shri Aroon Prasad, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate

Section 144BSection 147Section 260A

year 2016-17. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of four days. The Revenue filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay. On perusal of the condonation petition and upon hearing both