← 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

Kalyan Brata Sangha, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

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

ITA 393/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

Uthuman Sahib Shaji, Pathanapuram vs. DCIT, Circle, International Taxation, Trivandrum

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

ITA 998/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Sri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 144C

filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record with regard to condonation of delay. We find there is a good and sufficient reason in filing the appeal belatedly by 77 days before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the delay

Shri Kamlesh Purohit, Karamdi vs. ITO, Ratlam

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

ITA 150/IND/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Kamlesh Purohit, L/H & Ito S/O Late Ramsingh Purohit, Ratlam Vs. 89/1, Village Karamdi, Ratlam (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bbbpp5709A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 144

Delhi for A.Y.2009-2010. 2. There is a delay of 107 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 during the pendency of the Kamlesh ... delay. 3. Having considered the submissions of the Ld. AR and careful perusal of the reasons explained in the application for condonation of delay, we find that the assessee belongs to a rural area and has explained the reasons for delay of 107 days in filing the present appeal

Sharwan Lal Dudhawal, Sikar vs. ITO Ward Neemkathana Bor AO CPC, Neemkathana

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

ITA 549/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.549/Jpr/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sharwan Lal Dudhawal, The Income Tax Dudhwalon Ki Dhani Vpo V Officer, Ajeetgarh, S Ward-Neemkathana Sikar/Neemkathana, Meen- Bor Ao Cpc, Ka-Thana, Rajasthan-332701. Neemkathana. Pan: Ajypd8361Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta – Advocate (Ar) Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax/Jcit(Appeals)-5, Shrawan Lal Dudhwal [A]

Section 143(1)Section 234Section 249(3)Section 250Section 44A

grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in not admitting the appeal and dismissing the same on condonation of delay ignoring the sufficient material and evidences available on record, being the strong case on merit. Hence the order so passed ... submission along with paper book containing 167 pages. Page no.161 to 167 of the said paper book is the copy of application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A). Submission of ld.Departmental Representative for Revenue : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order

Alnavar Credit Souhardha Co-Operative Limited, Alnavar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hubli

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

ITA 926/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavalnavar Credit Souhardaha The Income Tax Officer Co-Operative Ltd. Ward - 1(1), Hubli Vs. 01, Indira Nagar, Alanvar 581103 Pan – Aadaa0459P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2002-23/1049609204(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 10.02.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Co-Operative Society, Filed Its Return Of Income On 01.10.2018 Declaring Nil Income. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Ld Assessing Officer (Ao) Relying Upon The Judgement Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Totagars Co-Operative Sale Society V. Acit [2023] 188 Taxmann.Com 282 (Sc) Disallowed The Deduction In Respect

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 250Section 250(6)

pertinent to note that there is a delay of around 379 days, in filing of the present appeal before ITAT. For condoning the delay, Ld. Counsel of the assessee argued that the order of the CIT(A) was not served on the assessee on the email ID which was mentioned ... rival submissions we observe that there is a delay of 379 days in filing the present appeal. In support of the application for condonation of delay the Finance Head of the assessee society has filed an affidavit( annexed with appeal memo). The Finance Head (FH) has stated that

Laxmibai Suresh Singh Rajput, Mumbai vs. Old ITO 41(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1136/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Mrs. Laxmibai Suresh Vs. Ito 41(2)(1) Singh Rajput, Room No. 3 Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Jai Bhavani Hsg. Society, Mumbai -110001 G.K. Gokhale Road, Mulund (East), Mumbai – 400081 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ajepr7466C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Raj Singh Meel
Section 132Section 144Section 148Section 40A(3)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that assessee has not filed application for condonation of delay of 73 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 4. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. Without reiterating the fact as discussed above ... form no. 35 filed before the ld. CIT(A) wherein at column no. 15 the assessee has categorically requested for condonation of delay by stating that order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 30.12.2016 was received on 06.01.2017 but due to some family problem, visiting the native

M/S. Punyabhoomi Welfare Service Society, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 528/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Varis Isani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

filed belatedly by the assessee beyond the time prescribed u/s. 253(3) by 104 days. The assessee has filed an application praying for condonation of delay supported by affidavit. In the application as well as affidavit, the assessee has claimed that the assessee was never informed about the order passed ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee, the assessee filed the appeal with the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee prayed for the condonation of delay , and the ld. Sr DR left the matter to the Bench to decided about the condonation of delay. After hearing both the parties

Alkaben Ketulkumar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 287/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

filed belatedly by 67 days with the Tribunal, beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3). The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in which it has been explained that the assessee’s business and operations are dependent upon his Manager, Shri Kaushalbhai Patel. It is stated that ... there was delay of 67 days in filing the appeal beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3). The prayers are made to condone the delay in filing this appeal belatedly beyond the time provided u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act. The ld. Departmental Representative did not raise serious objection

Rahul Sukanraj Gadiya, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 9(5), Pune

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

ITA 870/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.870/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

outset, we find that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 580 days. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of bringing the Legal Heirs on record. Considering the fact that bringing the Legal ... Heirs on record involves lengthy procedure, we are of the considered opinion that it a fit case to condone the delay. Therefore, we admit the appeal for disposal. 6. The ld. Authorised Representative submits that the appellant could not cause appearance before the authorities on account of death

Seva Bharati, Bankura vs. CIT(E), Kolkata

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

ITA 640/KOL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

mail and other electronic devices, the appeal could not be filed within the due time and prayed before the Tribunal for condoning the delay of 243 days. 3. We find merit in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee and are of the view that there was sufficient ... 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

Sudha Dhoot, Kolkata vs. AO Ward 40 (4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 127/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ram Avtar Dhoot, CAFor Respondent: Smt Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 21Section 250

dated 06.11.2017. 2. Appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 29 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay u/s. 250 of the Act in filing of Form No. 36. However, the same is addressed to the ITO, Ward-40(4)3 Gov. Kolkata ... Shyam Garden 12, Haridutt Rai Chamaria Road 3rd Floor Howrah (North) West Bengal India, do here by solemnly affirm and declare as under: Condonation of Delay under section 250 of the income Tax Act 1961 in filing of Form No. 36 for Assessment Year 2018-19. 1. In exercise

Shriram Nanda Education and Welfare Society, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Exemption Circle Bhopal, Arera Colony, Bhopal

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

ITA 257/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishriram Nanda Education & Acit, Welfare Society, Exemption Circle, Vs. Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaajs1707L Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar,Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 02.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 10Section 13Section 251(2)

Delhi for A.Y.2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 18 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith the affidavit of the counsel of the assessee to explain the cause of delay. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that ... appeal of the assessee may be admitted for adjudication on merits. On the other hand, Ld. DR has not seriously objected to the condonation of delay. rival submissions of the Ld. AR as well as Ld. DR and careful perusal of the contents of the affidavit we are satisfied that

Muthiah Shanmugam, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward - 3, Vellore

In the result the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 345/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.345/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2020-21 Muthiah Shanmugam Income Tax Officer, No.1/245, Arapakkam Village, Ward-3, Vellore. Bapsu Nagar, Walaja Tk, Arapakkam, Vellore. [Pan: Aanps3951R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T.Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 80CSection 80G

first appellate authority, the assesse has raised grounds of appeal no.1 to 7 which are all centering around the controversy of non-condonation of delay by the Ld.CIT(A) and confirmation of the impugned addition of Rs.10,57,500/-. 4.0 Before us the Ld.AR submitted that the assesse had genuine ... have condoned the same and adjudicated accordingly. The Ld.AR submitted that the matter may be considered for restoration to the Ld.CIT(A) for condonation of delay and adjudication. The Ld.DR argued that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is correct and does not require any interference. 5.0 We have heard

Mrs. Malini Ramakrishnan, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-6(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1187/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1187/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mrs. Malini Ramakrishnan, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 46, Rukmani Salai, Kalakshetra Colony, Income Tax, Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090. Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai. [Pan: Achpr3778B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Suresh, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.03.2024 Passed By The Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Vadodara For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Ld. Ar, Mrs. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 8 & Requested To Adjudicate The Ground As An Effective Ground. The Ld. Ar Further Submits That The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) On 12.04.2021 With A Delay Of Eight Years

For Appellant: Mrs. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 80CSection 80G

prayed to allow ground No. 8 and direct 3 I.T.A. No.1187/Chny/24 the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits by condoning the delay of eight years. 3. The ld. DR Shri G. Suresh, JCIT vehemently opposed the submissions of the ld. AR and argued that no valid reason ... record. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the ld. CIT(A) discussed the reasons explained by the assessee to condone the delay of 8 years in para 5. The ld. CIT(A) reproduced the petition for condonation of delay at page 6 of the impugned order

Rane Engine Valve Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 885/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

before 23.01.2018 but it was actually filed on 02.05.2018 with a delay of 99 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition for condoning the delay along with affidavit. The assessee has stated the following reason in its affidavit for the delay of 99 days and requested for condonation of delay ... admitted and the appeal may be decided on merits and thus render justice.” On the other hand, the ld.Senior DR opposed condonation of delay. 2.1 After hearing rival contentions and going through the reasons stated in the petition and arguments made by ld.counsel, we are inclined to accept the cause

Rane Engine Valve Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 2815/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

before 23.01.2018 but it was actually filed on 02.05.2018 with a delay of 99 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition for condoning the delay along with affidavit. The assessee has stated the following reason in its affidavit for the delay of 99 days and requested for condonation of delay ... admitted and the appeal may be decided on merits and thus render justice.” On the other hand, the ld.Senior DR opposed condonation of delay. 2.1 After hearing rival contentions and going through the reasons stated in the petition and arguments made by ld.counsel, we are inclined to accept the cause

Rane Engine Valve Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 1477/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

before 23.01.2018 but it was actually filed on 02.05.2018 with a delay of 99 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition for condoning the delay along with affidavit. The assessee has stated the following reason in its affidavit for the delay of 99 days and requested for condonation of delay ... admitted and the appeal may be decided on merits and thus render justice.” On the other hand, the ld.Senior DR opposed condonation of delay. 2.1 After hearing rival contentions and going through the reasons stated in the petition and arguments made by ld.counsel, we are inclined to accept the cause

Rane Engine Valves Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 1498/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

before 23.01.2018 but it was actually filed on 02.05.2018 with a delay of 99 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition for condoning the delay along with affidavit. The assessee has stated the following reason in its affidavit for the delay of 99 days and requested for condonation of delay ... admitted and the appeal may be decided on merits and thus render justice.” On the other hand, the ld.Senior DR opposed condonation of delay. 2.1 After hearing rival contentions and going through the reasons stated in the petition and arguments made by ld.counsel, we are inclined to accept the cause

Rane Engine Valves Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 1497/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

before 23.01.2018 but it was actually filed on 02.05.2018 with a delay of 99 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition for condoning the delay along with affidavit. The assessee has stated the following reason in its affidavit for the delay of 99 days and requested for condonation of delay ... admitted and the appeal may be decided on merits and thus render justice.” On the other hand, the ld.Senior DR opposed condonation of delay. 2.1 After hearing rival contentions and going through the reasons stated in the petition and arguments made by ld.counsel, we are inclined to accept the cause

Chief Offier, Davangere vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward, Davangere

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 932/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 194Section 194C

common order dated 29.02.2024 of the CIT(Appeals)-11, Bangalore for the AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12 respectively on identical issue of non- condonation of delay in filing the appeals and dismissing the appeals. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a survey was conducted u/s. 133A ... ITAT. 5. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(Appeals) is not justified in prima facie not accepting the reasons and not condoning the delay. He dismissed the appeals without going into merits of the case. He further submitted that the assessee is situated in a very remote area