← 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

ACIT, Circle 10(1), New Delhi vs. Hero Ecotech Limited, Punjab

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

ITA 6371/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 68Section 69C

4/10442/2019-20. 2. At the threshold, it is noted that the appeal is time-barred by 8 days. Revenue has submitted an affidavit for condonation of delay. Considering the reasons mentioned therein, we hereby condone the minor delay of 8 days in filing of the appeal

Surinder Kumar Malhotra, Delhi vs. National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi

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

ITA 6370/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sh. Sombir Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 68

threshold it is noted that the appeal is time-barred by 161 days. The Assessee has submitted an affidavit in support of the condonation of delay. It has been stated in the affidavit that the assessee, a senior citizen was unwell since February, 2025 due to which he could

Meka Viraj Gopal Apparao, Nuzvid vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 232/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.232/Viz./2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Meka Viraj Gopal Apparao, Kotapadu Estate, Nuzvid The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mandal, Krishna Ward-3(1), District. Vijayawada – 520 002. Pin – 521 201. Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Mv Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

outset, there is a delay of 107 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition/affidavit for condonation of delay. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee challenged the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High ... order of the Assessing Officer and consequential impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) becomes infructuous and therefore, declining to condone the delay would amount to upholding the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) otherwise becomes infructuous and non-est. It is settled proposition of law that when

Kamal Basha Noor Ali Jasmine, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward-3, Cuddalore

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

ITA 3144/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3144/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.Girish Kumar AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.CIT
Section 250

There is a delay of 341 days in filing these three appeals before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay along with the supporting affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reason stated by the assessee in the condonation petition is that ... view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits. 3. At the very outset, we notice that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) had dismissed

Ganesh Chand Suresh Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(3), Chennai

ITA 3143/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3143/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ganesh Chand Suresh Kumar, A-2, 1St Floor, Ashok Ganapathim, New No.49, 4Th Main Road, R.A. Puram, Chennai - 600 028. Pan: Brtps 0536A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), Chennai (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2026 आदेश/ Order Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 18.09.2025, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called `The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. :-2 -:

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

reasonable cause for condoning the same. 4. On perusing the order of FAA, we noted that the assessee had filed application for condonation of delay before the FAA stating the reason that the notices issued during the course of assessment proceedings were sent to the email ID which ... rejected the assessee's request for condonation and dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In our view, the reason cited by assessee in its petition before FAA seems quite reasonable and hence, we condone the delay before

Kesaram Chatararamji Choudhary, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(21)(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 6556/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Naina ChaurasiaFor Respondent: 10/12/2025
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69Section 69A

issue of We have heard the rival submissions on the issue of We have heard the rival submissions on the issue of condonation of delay. The assessee has filed a detailed affidavit condonation of delay. The assessee has filed a detailed affidavit condonation of delay. The assessee has filed ... approach not trace the earlier consultant and was constrained to approach Kesaram Chatararamji Coudhary Kesaram Chatararamji Coudhary along with an application for condonation of delay. The affidavit along with an application for condonation of delay. The affidavit along with an application for condonation of delay. The affidavit also states that

Suresh Shroff Memorial Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO- Exem Ward 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5743/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Section 11 as the assessee has not filed Form 10B on time. The Ld. AR has submitted that the CIT(E) has subsequently condoned the delay in filing Form 10B but the Assessing Officer has not considered the same. The Ld. AR has also submitted that the exemption was denied

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Priti Construction Tirupathi Construction Corporation Joint Venture, Mumbai

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

ITA 5663/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishι.Τ.Α. No. 5663/Mum/2025

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250

petition and keeping in view that the delay is due to administrative reasons, we are satisfied that there exists sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay of 136 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of civil contract work such

ACIT, Delhi vs. Payal Garg, Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 383/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalacit Vs. Payal Garg, Delhi-110002 H. No. 03, Sector 19 I Block, Pocket A, Rohini, Delhi 110085 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Agjpg 9417 E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69C

outset, it comes up that the cross-objections have been filed with the delay of 70 days for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed and as the delay is not of a substantial period, the delay is condoned and cross-objections are admitted for hearing

Dalip Jindal, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central)Delhi-1, Delhi

ITA 2864/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaljindal Green Crop Vs. Pcit (Central), International Pvt. Ltd. Delhi-1, Lu-11, Pitam Pura, Delhi North West Delhi 110034 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcj 1028 K Appellant .. Respondent Dalip Jindal, Vs. Pcit (Central), Lu-11, Pitam Pura, Delhi-1, North West Delhi 110034 Delhi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapj 3957 F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT (DR)
Section 263

pointed out that there is a delay of 334 days in filing of the appeals for which it was submitted that application for condonation of delay has been filed and the reason is that the assessee- Company was represented by assessee Dalip Jindal who was in custody

Jindal Green Crop International Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central), Delhi-1, Delhi

ITA 2863/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaljindal Green Crop Vs. Pcit (Central), International Pvt. Ltd. Delhi-1, Lu-11, Pitam Pura, Delhi North West Delhi 110034 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcj 1028 K Appellant .. Respondent Dalip Jindal, Vs. Pcit (Central), Lu-11, Pitam Pura, Delhi-1, North West Delhi 110034 Delhi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapj 3957 F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT (DR)
Section 263

pointed out that there is a delay of 334 days in filing of the appeals for which it was submitted that application for condonation of delay has been filed and the reason is that the assessee- Company was represented by assessee Dalip Jindal who was in custody

Sunita Tuli, Pathankot vs. ITO Ward-1, Pathankot

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

ITA 603/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Adv
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961 dated 16.03.2023. 2 I.T.A. No. 603/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is filed belatedly by 94 (ninety-four) days. The assessee has prayed for condonation ... Tribunal, against the order of the Ld. first appellate authority, which has been belatedly filed by 94 days. She has prayed for condonation of delay in absence of any willful or intentional default on her part, and requested for admission of the appeal to be heard on merits

Sangam Traders 60-Golden Avenue Saili Road Pathankot, Pathankot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Pathankot Saili Road Pathankot, Pathankot

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

ITA 706/ASR/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 144Section 249(3)Section 250Section 68

case. He further submitted that the appellate authority should have examined whether sufficient cause exists or has been shown by the party for condoning the delay because the context of condonation of delay should be given a liberal interpretation so as to render substantial justice. He further submitted that

Adarsha Samaj Kalyan Samittee, Nagaon vs. ITO, Ward-Nagaon, Nagaon

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

ITA 331/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahui.T.A. No. 331/Gty/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Adarsha Samaj Kalyan Samittee,.....……..Appellant Belaguri Natun Bazar, P.O. Solmari, P.S. Rupahi, Solmari B.O., Sastri Nagar, Nagaon-782002, Assam [Pan:Aabaa1582B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………..……………..…...Respondent Ward-Nagaon, Rkb Road, Hazibergaon, Nagaon, Nagoon-782001, Assam Appearances By: Shri Anil Jha, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: January 22, 2026 O R D E R

Section 147

before the ld. CIT(Appeals). However, the assessee did not file any affidavit or condonation petition before the CIT(Appeals) in support of condonation of delay of 218 days. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing ... appeal within the stipulated time before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay of 218 days before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Hence the delay is condoned. 4. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(Appeals

Shyam Sunder Prasad, Vaishali vs. DCIT-Circle-1 Patna, Patna

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

ITA 494/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President), SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kumar Anwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. A.H.Chowdhury, CIT-DR

find that the appeal of the assessee is time barred by 215 days. In this regard, the ld. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay stating therein that due to lack of knowledge of passing of the ex-parte order by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, the assessee could ... issues afresh. 3. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below and also objected to condone the delay. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee and pleaded to uphold the orders of the authorities below

Gajullanka Primary Agriculture Co Op Society, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

In the result, all the four appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.495 To 498/Viz./2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Gajullanka Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture Co-Op Ward-1, Tenali. Society,Avulavaripalem, Vs. Pin – 522 201. Kolluru Mandal, Guntur State Of Andhra District – 522 324. Pradesh Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri C Subrahmanyam, Ca [Hybrid Mode] राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri C Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271A

with facts of the case and provisions of law. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay by 65 days, ignoring the bonafide reasons and medical evidence submitted by the appellant, and failed to appreciate that the delay ... case and provisions of law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone the delay of 257 days in filing the appeal, despite the fact that the appellant clearly explained the cause of delay supported by cogent and credible evidence

Gajullanka Primary Agriculture Co Op Society, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

In the result, all the four appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 497/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.495 To 498/Viz./2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Gajullanka Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture Co-Op Ward-1, Tenali. Society,Avulavaripalem, Vs. Pin – 522 201. Kolluru Mandal, Guntur State Of Andhra District – 522 324. Pradesh Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri C Subrahmanyam, Ca [Hybrid Mode] राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri C Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271A

with facts of the case and provisions of law. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay by 65 days, ignoring the bonafide reasons and medical evidence submitted by the appellant, and failed to appreciate that the delay ... case and provisions of law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone the delay of 257 days in filing the appeal, despite the fact that the appellant clearly explained the cause of delay supported by cogent and credible evidence

Gajullanka Primary Agriculture Co Op Society, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

In the result, all the four appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 496/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.495 To 498/Viz./2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Gajullanka Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture Co-Op Ward-1, Tenali. Society,Avulavaripalem, Vs. Pin – 522 201. Kolluru Mandal, Guntur State Of Andhra District – 522 324. Pradesh Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri C Subrahmanyam, Ca [Hybrid Mode] राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri C Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271A

with facts of the case and provisions of law. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay by 65 days, ignoring the bonafide reasons and medical evidence submitted by the appellant, and failed to appreciate that the delay ... case and provisions of law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone the delay of 257 days in filing the appeal, despite the fact that the appellant clearly explained the cause of delay supported by cogent and credible evidence

Gajullanka Primary Agriculture Co Op Society, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

In the result, all the four appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 495/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.495 To 498/Viz./2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Gajullanka Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture Co-Op Ward-1, Tenali. Society,Avulavaripalem, Vs. Pin – 522 201. Kolluru Mandal, Guntur State Of Andhra District – 522 324. Pradesh Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri C Subrahmanyam, Ca [Hybrid Mode] राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri C Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271A

with facts of the case and provisions of law. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay by 65 days, ignoring the bonafide reasons and medical evidence submitted by the appellant, and failed to appreciate that the delay ... case and provisions of law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone the delay of 257 days in filing the appeal, despite the fact that the appellant clearly explained the cause of delay supported by cogent and credible evidence

Nayana Jayesh Patel, Indore vs. Assessing Officer, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 475/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 250Section 50c

after expiry of statutory period and hence time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application/affidavit for condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference: Page 2 of 10 Nayana Jayesh Patel ITA No. 475/Ind/2025