← 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

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

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

ITA 931/BANG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

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

Iei Shareholding (Personal Development -1987) Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2222/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaravs. Ito Ward 22(2)(1), Iei Shareholding(Personal Piramal Chambers, Development -1987) Trust, Lalbaugh, Ion House, 4Th Floor, Mumbai-400011. Dr. E Moses Road, Near Famous Studio, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011. Pan/Gir No. Aaati0093D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 164(1)Section 167B

filed the appeal before appellate authorities and the delay was not wanton Act. Further the asssessee has filed a request application for condonation of delay. The Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has good case on merits with 4 IEI Shareholding Trust, Mumbai supporting evidences which goes to roots ... emphasized that there are genuine reasons and the delay was not an wanton Act. The assessee has filed the application for condonation of delay before the CIT(A) referred at Page 5 Para4.6 of the CIT(A) order read as under: “4.6 The appellant has filed its reply/ explanation

Late Krishnakumar Raghunath Koli, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1836/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: your honour for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order passed under Section 250 of the Income tax Act by learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) for the aforesaid assessment year. It appears that the said order has been received by the appellant on 12 June 2023 i.e. the date of the order passed by the CIT(A).

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69C

quantum of assessment passed u/s.144 for the A.Y.2013-14. 2. Prima facie, the appeal is delayed by 216 days. In the petition for condonation of delay it has been stated as under:- 2 Suvarna K Koli (Legal Heir of Late M. Krishnakumar “I, Suvarna k Koli, legal heir of the appellant ... making this application before your honour for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order passed under Section 250 of the Income tax Act by learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) for the aforesaid assessment year. It appears that the said order has been received by the appellant

Income Tax Officer, Patiala vs. Sh. Sewa Singh, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 696/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 696/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Ito, Vs. Shri Sewa Singh, बनाम H. No. B-27,Focal Point, Patiala Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abjpj5347B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rahul Sohu, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02 .07.2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Sohu, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43BSection 69

that the Department has filed a letter regarding explaining the reasons 696-Chd-2023 Sewa Singh, Patiala 3 for delay and requested for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It was submitted that the return of income e-filed by the assessee was processed ... 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. 4.6 In view of the above facts, it was submitted that delay of 1137 days may kindly

B P Poddar Hospital & Medical Research Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 5(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 714/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 714/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 B.P. Poddar Hospital & Medical Research Ltd.,…………………………………………Appellant 18, Rabindra Sarani, Poddar Court, 9Th Floor, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aaccb1618G] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..Respondent Circle-5(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri A.K. Meena, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 01, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 02, 2024 O R D E R

Section 2Section 253Section 3Section 5

section 2 B.P. Poddar Hospital & Medical Research Ltd. 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 of this ... looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss”. 5 B.P. Poddar Hospital & Medical Research

Kaizen Industries, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 29, Kolkata

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

ITA 485/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 485/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Kaizen Industries,………….………………………Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Aaefk2373E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,……..Respondent Circle-29, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-700031 Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ankur Goyal, Jcit, Sr. D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 29, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 02, 2024 O R D E R

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Appellate Authority against the assessment order dated 28.03.2023 was time barred by 136 days. The assessee has filed an explanation for condonation of delay by way of an affidavit, wherein it was submitted that notices were issued by the ld. Assessing Officer during the course of reassessment proceedings ... 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

Blossom, Jaipur vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 405/JPR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 80G

appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the 2 Blossom vs. CIT(E) assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: Vide letter dated 12.03.2024 the assessee contended as under: “Sub: Application seeking Condonation of delay - M/s Blossom In the aforesaid context ... facts is enclosed herewith. In the circumstances of the matter it is humbly prayed to the Hon’ble Bench to please direct the condonation of delay which is merely of 197 days and to be kind enough to direct the listing of the appeal for disposal on the merits. Your

Societe Generale Global Solution Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1028/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Rony Antony, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 1Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 250Section 44ASection 90

advised to file an appeal as against the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, a liberal approach may be taken for condonation of delay since assessee’s application for rectification of the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act has been filed within time and same

Maf Clothing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 1001/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Prakash Chand Yadav (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chinmay Anand Jain, JCIT-
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

with a delay of 506 days. The ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limnee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal, on the ground that the reasons explained by the assessee are not sufficient for condoning the delay. 4. Now the assessee has come ... belatedly. To point out the factual scenario, the ld. Counsel of the assessee drew the attention of the Bench towards the petition for condonation of delay filed before the ld. CIT(A). He contended that in this case notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee

Prem Chand Yadav, Lucknow vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Lucknow - New

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

ITA 406/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Prem Chand Yadav V. The Acit-1 1/374, Sector 1 Lucknow Gomti Nagar Extension Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Pan:Abqpy1283Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Dr Preeti Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 02 07 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr Preeti Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 68

after perusing the material on record. 4. There is delay in filing of this appeal; and the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. The ld. D.R. has no objection to the prayer made by the assessee for condonation of delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit this

Naveet Sharma, Vill.Nagabag P.O.Bandrol vs. ITO Ward Kullu, Kullu

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

ITA 744/CHANDI/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2024

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The Reasons For The Delay

For Appellant: Shri Amitoz Singh Kamboj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

explainable.” 2. There is a delay of 16 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay occurred in filing the present application. The contents of the application for condonation of delay are reproduced hereunder ... been attached at Annexure” 3. An affidavit by the earlier counsel of the assessee has also been filed alongwith the application for condonation of delay. ITA 744/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 3 4. From the contents of the application, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from

Science and Tech Enter Park Step, Thapar University, Patiala vs. CIT Exemptions, C R Building Chandigarh

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

ITA 742/CHANDI/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: This Tribunal. The Ld. Ar Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The Reasons For The Delay

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

There is a delay of 256 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. AR has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay occurred in filing the present application. The contents of the application for condonation of delay are reproduced hereunder ... notices. The society has reasonable cause of not filing the appeal within the stipulated period. 7. A humble prayer is made to kindly condone the delay in the interest of equity and justice and hear the appeal on merits. 3. From the contents of the application, we are satisfied that

The Khanyan Multipurpose Coop Agricultural Service Societyltd, Village Khanyan vs. DCIT, Circle, Mandi Gobindgarh Hq Sirhind

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 719/CHANDI/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The Reasons For The Delay

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80P

justice. 4. There is a delay of 70 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay occurred in filing the present application. The contents of the application for condonation of delay are reproduced hereunder ... appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT has expired and further advised us to file the appeal urgently alongwith the application praying for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 6. That the delay in filing the appeal is due to the lackadaisical approach of the counsel

The Khanyan Multipurpose Coop Agricultural Service Society Ltd, Village Khanyan vs. DCIT Circle Mandi Gobindgarh Hq Sirhind

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 718/CHANDI/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The Reasons For The Delay

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80P

justice. 4. There is a delay of 70 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay occurred in filing the present application. The contents of the application for condonation of delay are reproduced hereunder ... appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT has expired and further advised us to file the appeal urgently alongwith the application praying for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 6. That the delay in filing the appeal is due to the lackadaisical approach of the counsel

Sh. Om Parkash, Kurukshetra vs. ITO, W-2, Kurukshetra

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

ITA 1163/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The

For Appellant: Shri B.M.Monga, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

Karnal. 2. There is a delay of 259 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the ITA 1163/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 2 reasons for the delay occurred in filing the present application. The contents of the application ... condonation of delay are reproduced hereunder : “1. That, Sh. Rahul Pooniya, Advocate, chamber No. 57, Old Court complex, Kurukshetra, is looking after various civil and criminal cases of the assessee- appellant Sh. Om Parkash and that of'Panchayati Akhara'. 2. That on 08.10.2018, the assessee received Appellate Order from

Bhardwaj Harshvadan Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3) Now Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 39/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 39/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Bhardwaj Harshvadan Ito बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Patel Ward – 1(2)(3), Vs. 201, A Block, Jasper Now Ward – 1(2)(1), Homes, Nr. Sears Towers, Vadodara Vadodara, Gujarat, 390015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arhpp4034D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tej Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr. Dr 20/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 01/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 11.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. As Per Registry, There Is A Delay Of 91 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Was Received By Him On 18.11.2023 And

For Respondent: Shri Urjit Shah, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

that there was change of Counsel during the period which led to this delay. The Revenue has not raised any objection to the condonation of delay. Considering the explanation of the assessee the delay is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that no return of income ... taken following grounds in this appeal: “1. The CIT(A) erred in law and in the facts of the case in not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal by the appellant and dismissing the same in limine without giving an opportunity to the assessee for presenting the sufficient

Ordnance Factories Womens Welfare Association, Kolkata vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Income Tax, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 569/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Arnab Chakraborty, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)(a)Section 250

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for I.T.A. No. 569/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Ordnance Factories Womens Welfare Association, Kolkata 2 condonation of delay in filing audit report. Vide order dt. 30/04/2024, the delay of 132 days in filing audit report in Form 10B for Assessment Year 2022-23 has been ... filed within due date. However, subsequent to the passing of the impugned order on 18/01/2024, assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B for Assessment Year 2022-23, dt. 11/04/2023 (filed prior to the passing of impugned order) has been allowed and vide order dt. I.T.A

Anuradha Ashok Satbhai, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 482/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish SomaniFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by not condoning the delay of 214 days in filing of the appeal before him. 2 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee ... that due to delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC by 214 days, the CIT(A) / NFAC did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal by stating that the assessee did not explain any cogent and sufficient reason to enable the condonation of delay

Mr. Anil Ananda Pokharnikar, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(3), Pune

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

ITA 356/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prashant MunotFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati
Section 144Section 147Section 2Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

before and during the time of hearing.” 3. The appeal which was due on 09.12.2023 has been filed on 22.02.2024. An application for condonation of delay has been moved accompanied with an affidavit sworn by the assessee. After hearing the Ld. Representatives of the parties, the delay is hereby condoned

Primera Medical Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 381/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri PVSS Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Smt. L. Sunitha Rao, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

further submitted that the assessee does not stand to gain by allowing the time to lapse. Though the learned DR resisted the condonation of delay the fact remains that the plea of the assessee that the concerned persons suffered covid related complications, does not appear to be anything abnormal ... unusual. Taking a lenient view, we deem it just and proper to condone the delay. We, therefore, now shall proceed to hear the appeal and decide the same on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company, engaged in the business of providing ITeS