← 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

Sunil Kumar Mishra, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 277/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.277/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sunil Kumar Mishra ………. Appellant (Pan: Ahppm0825R) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(1), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Gopal Ram Sharma, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 09.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 21.07.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 144 Of The Act By Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata Dated 24.12.2019. 2. Registry Has Informed That This Appeal Of Assessee Is Time Barred By 96 Days. Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed By Assessee. Perusal Of The Same & Also Considering The Ratio Of I.T.A. No. 277/Kol/2024 Sunil Kumar Mishra, Ay : 2017-18

Section 115BSection 144Section 246ASection 250Section 264Section 271ASection 69A

Ward-40(1), Kolkata dated 24.12.2019. 2. Registry has informed that this appeal of assessee is time barred by 96 days. Application for condonation of delay has been filed by assessee. Perusal of the same and also considering the ratio of I.T.A. No. 277/Kol/2024 Sunil Kumar Mishra ... stated to be a layman and dependent upon the Ld. AR and considering the same, and also in the interest of justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: “1. .For that the Assessment order U/s.144

Ayiravaisya Kasukkara Chettiyargal Mahasabai, Virudhunagar vs. ITO Ward 1, Virudhunagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesseeis allowed for

ITA 837/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

outset, it is noticed that these appeals are barred by limitation by 305 days and assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay. The facts of the case are that the orders of CIT(E) is dated 29.03.2023. As per Form 36, the assessee has received this order ... before 28.05.2023 but appeal was actually filed on 28.03.2024 and thereby, there is a delay of 305 days. The assessee filed affidavit for condonation of delay of 305 days stating the reasons as under:- “4. The Appellant submitted response along with copy of the amendment deed on 21.03.2023 itself. However

Ana Charitable Trust, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Thane

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 58/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya , CAFor Respondent: ShriManoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR.)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250

date as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A), the appellate authority has no power to condone the delay for delay filing of the return. Accordingly, the addition was upheldU/s 143(1) of the Act. Being aggrieved on the appeal order, the assessee ... page 10, para 5.9 which is reproduced as below: - “5.9 CBDT has issued circular No.06/2020 dated 19.02.2020 to overcome this difficulty and to Condone of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in filing ofReturn of Income

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mandi Gobindgarh, Hq Sirhind vs. Partap Industries Limited, Rajpura

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 464/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 464/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Ito, Vs. Partap Industries Limited, बनाम Rajpura Ward-1, New Libra Kothi, Mandi Gobindgarh Railway Road, Sirhind Hq. Sirhind, 140406 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcp0384Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Shri Raman Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 5

letter dated 27.07.2023 on this issue, the contents of which are as under: - “Subject: Application u/s 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing departmental appeal to ITAT in the case of M/s Partap industries Ltd., Vill. Beopror, Tehsil Rajpura, Distt. Patiala - PAN-AABCP0384Q ... substantial question of law involved, appeal should not be rejected on technical ground of delay. The High Court in this case, condoned a delay of 314 days in filing appeal by Revenue. The copy of the order is enclosed as Annexure-B for your kind reference. 10. In view

Megacity Inn, Salt Lake, Sector V vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

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

ITA 253/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.253/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Megacity Inn. ………. Appellant (Pan: Abefm8988L) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri I. Banerjee Appeared For Appellant. Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, Addl./Jcit(A)-9, Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 11.12.2023 Arising Out Of The Intimation Framed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By Dcit, Cpc Dated 13.05.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Faceless Appellate Authority Was Not Justified In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Consequently, Summarily Concluding The Inadmissibility Of The Appeal, For Being Barred By Limitation, Although In The Affidavit Filed

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 40

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Faceless Appellate Authority was not justified in not condoning the delay in filing the Appeal and consequently, summarily concluding the inadmissibility of the Appeal, for being barred by limitation, although in the Affidavit filed I.T.A ... fair opportunity before the Ld. CIT(A) and also Ld. Cit(A) did not consider the application of assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. He thus, prayed that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) may be condoned and matter may be restored

M/S. Paravur Service Co-Operative Bank, Kollam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, the appeal and stay petition filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 767/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Santosh P. Abraham, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

raised important questions as regards principles of valuation was dismissed as time barred being 4 days beyond time by rejecting an application for condonation of delay. Hence the Collector of Land Acquisition filed appeal by special leave before the Apex Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there ... warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the State is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact, experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note making, file-pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay

Pukhraj Bhomaji Mutha, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2150/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaravs. Ito -19(2)(5), Pukhraj Bhomaji Mutha, Piramal Chambers, 1605, Siddesh Darshan, Lalbaug, 10Th Khetwadi, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai – 400004. Pan/Gir No. Aacpm4077H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144Section 148

there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal. The Assesse has filed an affidavit substantiating the facts for condonation of delay and we consider it is appropriate to refer to the notarised affidavit of the assessee read as under: 2 Pukhraj Bhomaji Mutha, Mumbai ... tests and considerations which had no bearing or nexus with issue at hand-Tribunal, therefore, erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone delay-Explanation placed on affidavit was not contested nor Court found that from such explanation, High Court could not arrive at conclusion that assessee

Brij Educational Trust, Meerut vs. CIT (Exemption), Lucknow

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

ITA 1498/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2011-12 Brij Educational Trust, Vs. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow A-162, Defence Colony, C.R. Building, Ito, Meerut-250001 (Up) I.P. Estate, (Pan: Aabtb4074C) New Delhi - 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. RajkumarFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 14(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 26Section 263

upheld. 4.3. At the threshold, we note that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. For the condonation of delay assessee has filed the condonation application alongwith supporting affidavit and in support thereof he also filed the written submissions wherein, he has averred that the Registry ... application accompanies by an affidavit placed on the records of appeal. Upon careful consideration and hearing both the parties, we are inclined to condone the delay in dispute and accordingly the same is condoned and we further proceed to adjudicate the Ground of Appeal raised by the Assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mandi Gobindgarh, Hq Sirhind vs. New Fatehgarh Sahib Sirhind Bus Transport Pvt. Ltd., Sirhind

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 470/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Under Section 139(1) Of The Act, The Cpc Has Relied

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Record of Hearing 4. The ld. DR at the outset contended that there is a delay of 425 days and sought condonation of delay by placing reliance on decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of PCIT Vs M/s Organon India P.Ltd. (ITA No./16/2020) which by order ... CBDT Instructions/Circulars and which subsist as on date, whether the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court forms the reasonable basis for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal and seeking hearing on merits of the case as the same is the only reason which has been canvassed

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mandi Gobindgarh, Hq Sirhind vs. New Fatehgarh Sahib Sirhind Bus Transport Pvt. Ltd., Sirhind

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 469/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Under Section 139(1) Of The Act, The Cpc

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Record of Hearing 4. The ld. DR at the outset contended that there is a delay of 425 days and sought condonation of delay by placing reliance on decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of PCIT Vs M/s Organon India P.Ltd. (ITA No./16/2020) which by order ... CBDT Instructions/Circulars and which subsist as on date, whether the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court forms the reasonable basis for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal and seeking hearing on merits of the case as the same is the only reason which has been canvassed

Rajendra Harjivandas Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 949/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

54EC…” 8. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 1654 days in filing the above appeal by the assessee. The condonation of delay affidavit filed by the assessee reads as follows: 1. Rajendra Harjivandas Prajapati, aged about 61 years residing at 25, Nandigram Society, Nr. Railway Crossing ... ITAT based on the advice of the AR In view of this, the appeal is filed belatedly and your honours are prayed to condone the delay and admit the appeal Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 9. On perusal

The ACIT. Circle-2(2), Ahmedbad vs. Rajendra Harjivandas Prajapati, Ahmedbad

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

ITA 822/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

54EC…” 8. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 1654 days in filing the above appeal by the assessee. The condonation of delay affidavit filed by the assessee reads as follows: 1. Rajendra Harjivandas Prajapati, aged about 61 years residing at 25, Nandigram Society, Nr. Railway Crossing ... ITAT based on the advice of the AR In view of this, the appeal is filed belatedly and your honours are prayed to condone the delay and admit the appeal Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 9. On perusal

Nichampalayam Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Perundurai vs. ADIT-CPC Bengaluru, Bangaluru

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

ITA 40/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Nichampalayam Primary Agricultural- The Ito, Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Ward-2(1), 56, Odamedu,Thingalur, Erode. Perundurai-638 055. [Pan: Aaban 2881 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80P

return of income; and that the Ld Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter in short ‘the CCIT’) by order dated 20.12.2023 has condoned the delay in filing return of income; in such circumstances, we are of the view that substantial justice should not be denied and there is a reasonable ... cause for the delay. Therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee M/s. Nichampalayam Primary Co-op Credit Society Ltd., is a Co-operative Society and filed its return of income for the relevant year

Shimla, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2357/DEL/2023[AY 2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024

Bench: Us Which Is Filed In Paper Book At Page

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 54FSection 68

notice the appeal was filed with the delay of 7 days and filed an affidavit in this regard and prayed for condonation of delay. The DR objected for condonation of delay. 5. After considering the reason for delay, we condone the delay and proceed to hear of the case. Shimla

Wapmerr Consultancy & Financial Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-27(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2819/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chella Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mushtaq Ahmad Mir, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 68

brought on record duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules. 4. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 1020 days on the ground that the directors of the assessee are from Jammu and Kashmir and there was a communication gap between ... have perused the relevant material on record. The present appeal is late by 1020 days. Finding the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay to be reasonable, the delay is condoned. 6. Ground Nos. 1 and 3 have not been pressed. The same are dismissed as not pressed

The Barot Co-Operative Multipurpose Society Limited, Mandi vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandi

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 671/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 671/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Barot Cooperative Vs. The Ito, बनाम Mandi Multipurpose Society Limited, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh 176120 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacat9554D अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rahul Sohu, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Sohu, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250Section 253

Rs.48 95,755/- Assessed Income Rs.48,95,755/- 4. The ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has observed as under: “Condonation of delay In this case, it is found that there is a delay of about 5 months in filing of the Appeal. As per Form 35 filed ... mentioned at column No. 14 filed by him that there is delay in filing of the appeal and has not stated grounds for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal on time in column No. 15 of the same form, neither has the appellant filed any condonation of delay

Chinmaya Educational Society, Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Uhf, Nauni, Solan vs. ITO Ward Exemptions, Solan

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 528/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 528/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Chinmaya Educational Society, Vs. The Ito, Chinmaya Vidyalaya,, Ward Exemptions, बनाम Uhf, Nauni, Solan 172230 Solan Himachal Pradesh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaatc2581J अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04 .07.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 2. This appeal is delayed by 158 days and an Application for condonation of delay has been filed by the Assessee, the relevant contents of which are as under: 528-Chd-2022 Chinmaya Educational Society, Solan 2 1. That

Progressive Constructions Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 298/HYD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2018-19 Progressive Constructions Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 16(2), Limited, Hyderabad. #7Th Floor, Raghava North Block, Raghava Ratna Towers, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids – 500001, Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcp2274M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, Ca. Revenue By: Ms. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36

failed to provide necessary information before the Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate its case and the assessee failed to file application for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) for certain reasons. The learned AR further submitted that the assessee does not stand to gain by allowing the appeal ... found that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-filing of application for condonation of delay and also on merits. From paragraph 4.1 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is evident that the assessee was non- responsive continuously and made no effort

National Tea Research Foundation, Kolkata vs. ITO, Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 606/KOL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 606/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2023-2024 National Tea Research Foundation,……..…Appellant C/O. Tea Board Of India, 14, B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aaaan1603K] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer (Exemption),……………Respondent Kolkata, Income Tax Department, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Surendra Joshi, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manjeet Singh, Cit, D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 04, 2024 O R D E R

Section 12A(1)(ac)

Registry has pointed out that the appeal of the assessee is time barred by 154 days. In the application for condonation of delay, the assessee has submitted that ld. CIT(Exemption) has not issued the summons on the registered e-mail of the assessee. The order was also not communicated ... assessee on the registered e-mail of the assessee. For the reasons stated below, while dealing with the appeal of the assessee, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 4. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges

Kalyan Brata Sangha, Howrah vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 394/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 393 & 394/Kol/2024 Kalyan Brata Sangha,….………………………Appellant Brindabanpur, Police Station Uluberia, Howrah-711316, West Bengal [Pan:Aaatk5379E] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption),..Respondent Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row (6Th Floor), Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri P.K. Ray, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri A. Kundu, Cit, D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 15, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 04, 2024 O R D E R

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

barred by 126 days and the appeal bearing ITA No. 394/KOL/2024 is time barred by 123 days. The assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay along with affidavit of Shri Biswarup Debburman, Vice-President of the assessee- Society. It is deposed in the affidavit that there was some communication ... also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction