“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

Aasha Hement Ranawat, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward, 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed “in limine, with liberty as granted”

ITA 1480/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraaasha Hemant Ranawat Vs. Ito, Ward 19(1)(1) 1801, 18Th Floor, The Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Majestic, Khed Galli, X Piramal Chamber, Lane, Annasaheb Patil Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai- Marg, Prabhadevi, 400012 Mumbai- 400025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Prashant Barate, Sr-DR

Section 10(38)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

contended that she was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause to filethe appeal with same delay and requested to Hon’ble Tribunal to condone the delay. 2. On 20th June, 2024, on the date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee,nor there is any letter of adjournment ... cannot be condoned. Hence considering peculiar facts and circumstances in totally and in the absence of sufficient cause, we are inclined not to condone the delay, hence the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal under consideration is dismissed in limine, however with liberty to the assessee

Sonal Infotech Private Limited, Vashi, Navi Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1094/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 271Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

held that since appeal of the assessee was time barred by 35 days, he dismissed the appeal as unadmitted without considering the condonation of delay. The reasons given by the assessee for filing the appeal belatedly stating that the Director of the company is very old person ... fact that very 5 M/s. Sonal Infotech Pvt. Ltd. senior citizens are not use to email then Ld. CIT (A) should have condoned the delay of 35 days. Looking to the issue involved is only addition of Rs.4,00,000/-, we hold that delay of 35 days in filing

Avnish Kumar Suraj Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-36(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 1238/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Avnish Kumar Suraj Kumar Jain, Vs Ito, C-6/1., Rana Pratap Bagh, Ward-36(5), New Delhi-110007. New Delhi. Pan-Aekpj2063C Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.06.2024

Section 144Section 148Section 44A

present appeal is barred by time. There is a delay of 1170 day in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed application seeking condonation of delay. The reason for filing the present appeal late is stated to be worldwide spread of Covid-19 pandemic and shifting of business ... Revenue and perused the material available on record. In the affidavit filed by the assessee in support of application seeking condonation of delay, the contents of application are reproduced herein under:- Respected Sir, “It is respectfully submitted as under: 1. That the appellant has filed an appeal before

Randheja Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3 Now Ward-1, Gandhinagar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 649/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Randheja Dudh Utpadak The Ito, Ward-3 Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs Now Ward-1 To-Randheja Gandhinagar. Tal: Gandhinagar Pin : 382 620 Pan : Aacar 5164 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short Referred To As Ld.Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.11.2021 Pertaining To Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Notified That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 581 Days. In Order To Explain The Reasons For The Impugned Delay, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Cit(A)/Nfac Order Was Passed Against The Assessee On 22.11.2021. However, Due To Covid-19 Pandemic Limitation For Filing Appeal Before The Court Of Law Was Extended Till February, 2022. Therefore, After Expiry Of The Limitation For Filing Of The Appeal On Feb., 2022, The Assessee Was Required To File Appeal Within 60 Days Of The Same I.E. By April, 2022. But The Assessee Could File The Appeal On

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.DR

Section 250

aware of the delay in filing of the appeal, and immediately engaged an Advocate for the same. The contents of the application seeking condonation of delay in the form of an affidavit by the Secretary of the Society is reproduced herein below: ITA No.649 /Ahd/2023 3 3. The affidavit ... considered view that valuable right of the defendant Nos.3 and 4, and petitioners herein should not be defeated by declining to condone the delay which has occurred for the in action on the part of their advocate. More so when, despite service the respondents herein have chosen not to appear

Pune Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers Board, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1012/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

For Appellant: 2. The ld.AR submitted written submissions, relevant part of the same is reprodu

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

registration, tax liability is fastened even though they may otherwise be eligible for exemption and fulfil other substantive conditions. However, the power of condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available. 8.3 In order to provide relief to such trusts and remove hardship in genuine cases, section

Purushottam Narayanrao Jadhao, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 103/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai

Section 148Section 250Section 44A

going through the material available before us, we find that the assessee has filed photocopy of affidavit in support of the request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the reason stated by the assessee for the delay is as under:– “C. That the order was passed

Jagdish Jayantilal Patel, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 238/NAG/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 68

find that there is a delay of 1244 days in filing the present appeals by the assessee. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay and an affidavit in support of such application has also been filed wherein it has been filed wherein it has been stated by the assessee ... learned Counsel for the assessee prayed that the delay be condoned. 5. After considering the facts and circumstance of the issue relating to condonation of delay in filing the present appeals, we are of the opinion that there is a sufficient cause to condone the delay. Hence, the delay

Jagdish Jayantilal Patel, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 237/NAG/2017[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2024AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 68

Gaurav Gupta, Jhabua vs. ITO Jhabua, Jhabua

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 167/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2017-18 Shri Gaurav Gupta, Ito, Ward No. 9, Jhabua बनाम/ Petlawad, Vs. Jhabua (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Buxpg0125J Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2024

Section 144

submission to the CIT(A), just in three sentences, submitting ‘ignorance of law’ as reason of delay and making a humble prayer for condonation of delay. But the CIT(A) was not convinced and did not accede to the submission of assessee. In doing

Banvari Lal, Rajgarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajgarh

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

ITA 161/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibanvari Lal Ito Rajgarh Rajgarh Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agapl0102A Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 144Section 147

circumstances of the case. liable to be annulled. 3. The Id CIT was not justified in ex-parte dismissing the appeal and not condoning the delay that a fair and meaningful opportunity was not available to the appellant to the present case. 4 The Id CIT was not justified ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable and barred by limitation. He has referred to the application for condonation of delay filed before the CIT(A) which was also supported by the affidavit of the assesse and submitted that the assessee explained cause of delay of 126 days

K864 Murali Chennampatti Primary Agriculture Co-Op Credit Society, Erode vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

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

ITA 517/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 516 & 517/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. K864 Murali Chennampatti The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agriculture Co-Op Vs. Ward 2(1), Credit Society, Erode. Mulari Post, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode – 638 504. Pan: Aabak 3671M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A),Prayagraj In Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-23/1058743474 (1) & 1058743723(1) Both Dated 14.12.2023. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Were Processed & Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Were Issued By The Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Central Ita Nos.516 &517/Chny/2024 Processing Center (Cpc), Bengaluru Vide Orders Dated 12.07.2019 & 20.09.2020 Respectively.

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P

outset, it is noticed that these appeals are barred by limitation by 15 days and assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay. The facts of the case are that the orders of CIT(A) is dated 14.12.2023. As per Form 36, the assessee has received this order ... before 12.02.2024 but appeal was actually filed on 27.02.2024 and thereby, there is a delay of 15 days. The assessee filed affidavit for condonation of delay of 14 days stating the reason that the Secretary of the assessee Co-operative Society was preoccupied with finalization of statutory audit

K864 Murali Chennampatti Primary Agriculture Co-Op Credit Society, Erode vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

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

ITA 516/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P

Ramesh S, Chennai vs. ITO, Circle 7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1044/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 V. Shri S. Ramesh, The Acit, Old No.56, New No.117, Ncc-9, Sami Naicken Street, Chintadripet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aaapr 6313 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 250(6)

appeal i.e. more than 2802 days (i.e. more than ‘7’ years) and since assessee didn’t file any condonation petition, he didn’t condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. In this regard, according to him, the Ld.CIT(A) noted that the assessee has acknowledged in Form 35 that there ... Ld.CIT(A) noted that there was a delay of more than ‘7’ years in filing of the appeal and therefore, he didn’t condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that

M/S. Sjs Enterprises Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 972/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year:2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Rony Anthony, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234B

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - Delhi ["Ld. CIT(A)"] has failed to properly appreciate the facts as explained in the application for condonation of delay and therefore was unjustified in rejecting the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) was unreasonable and grossly erred by not considering the merits ... could not file the appeal with the stipulated time. We humbly pray before your goodself to be generous and accept our petition for condonation of delay for the captioned appeal.” 4.1. As seen from the above, assessee has stated that assessee was failed to take note of the various notices

Kpsal Vittal Shrimathi Sunandamma Kalyana Mantapa, Davangere vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions, Ward-1, Hubli

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 451/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CA

Section 51

delay to be condoned in the interest of justice to the assessee. 2.4 On the contrary, the Ld.DR opposed for the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee has a casual approach as there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) also. We have perused ... deserves consideration. Considering the submissions by both sides and respectfully following the observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court, I find it fit to condone the delay caused in filing the present appeals as it is not attributable to the assessee. Page 7 of 8 ITA Nos. 450 & 451/Bang/2024 Accordingly

Kpsal Vittal Shrimathi Sunandamma Kalyana Mantapa, Davangere vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions, Ward-1, Hubli

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 450/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CA

Section 51

Shrikant Basavanneppa Pattanshetti, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Hubblai

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

ITA 1077/BANG/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, ITP

Section 143(3)Section 250

submitted that, there is delay of 16 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR furnished affidavit for condonation of delay that reads as under: 1. The impugned appellate order u/s 250 of the Act was passed on 12-03-2024 and this date may be taken ... down the principle that the expression "reasonable cause" should be liberally construed so as to advance the cause of substantial justice. (ii) Non-condonation of delay has the undesirable effect of throwing out a meritorious case at the threshold, which should be avoided. It is for this reason that

M/S. Arham Mitra Mandal, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer(Exemptions)-Ward-1, Bangalore

ITA 1110/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 250

passed an order on 03.08.2022, under section 250 of the Act, dismissing the Appeal filed the Petitioner. • The Petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay in filing audit report under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, before the CBDT through speed post on 26.08.2020 vide acknowledgement ... Income Tax (Exemptions) New Delhi as the delay was beyond 365 days for AY 2018-2019. • The Petitioner was hopeful that PCCIT would condone the delay in filing Form 10B. Also delay has been condoned in similar circumstances in case of other Trusts. • The Learned Principal Commissioner of Income

B2345 Vikas Complex Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Centralized Processing Center Incometax Department, Bangalore

In the result, solitary ground in the appeal as well as the appeal is allowed

ITA 239/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am Cpc, Income Tax B2345 Vikas Complex Hsg. Department, Soc. Ltd. Post Bag No. 2, Electronic Seveno, 43,46,46 Vikas Complex Castle Mill City, Post Office, Vs. Compound Mumbra Road, Bangalore, Thane West-400601 Karnataka-560100 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajvo231C Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain Revenue By : Shri. R. R. Makhwana Date Of Hearing: 03.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/6/2024

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri. R. R. Makhwana

Section 143Section 154Section 80Section 80P

income tax portal on 20/2/2023 and therefore immediately appeal was filed and the delay may be condoned. The learned CIT – A did not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee is not maintainable. B2345 Vikas Complex Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd.; A.Y.2021-22 05. Assessee aggrieved with ... interest income on by assessee from other cooperative banks amounting to ₹ 604,396/- . He further submitted that the learned CIT – A has not condoned the delay which was explained to him was on account of the application for rectification filed by the assessee. 06. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported

Nagar Yuvak Shikshan Sanstha Airoli, Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 1688/MUM/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Nagar Yuvak Shikshan Vs. The Commissioner Of Sanstha, Airoli, Income Tax (Exemption) Datta Meghe College Of Room No.601, 6Th Floor, Engineering, Sector 3 Cumbala Hill, Mtnl Tele Airoli Navi Building Pedder Road, Mumbai – 400708 Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumbala Hill Mumbai – 400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaatn1833A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Manoj G. Moryani Respondent By : S. Srinivasu Date Of Hearing 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Exemption) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2023- 24. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Ex-Parte Order Passed For Rejection Of Approval U/S. 80G Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law; 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income (Exemption), Mumbai Has Issued Notice On Email Id, The Mail Id Belongs To Ex-Employee Shri Vijay Nerrulkar Who Was Retired & Notice Was Not Properly Served To The Assessee Trust, Therefore Rejection Of Approval & Passing Of Ex-Parte Order Is Unjustified, Unwarranted & Excessive;

For Appellant: Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: S. Srinivasu

Section 10ASection 80G

grounds at the time of hearing;” 2. There was delay of 330 days in filing the appeal the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along with affidavit dated 03.04.2024. 3. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The assessee reported in the AFFIDAVIT dated ... portal of the Income Tax Department and filed the appeal on 05.04.2024 which resulted in delay by 330 days. The assessee requested for condonation of delay because of not receiving the ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax in rejecting the approval u/s 80G of the Income