“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

New Horizon Education Society, Navi Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 1522/MUM/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, New Horizon Education Vs. The Cit(Exemption) Society, Anand Nagar Room No.601, 6Th Floor, Kavesar, Ghodbunder Cumbala Hill, Mtnl Road, Thane, West, Building, Pedder Road, Thane – 400615 Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumbala Hill Mumbai – 400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aabtn2615F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Manoj G. Moryani Respondent By : S. Srinivasu Date Of Hearing 19.06.2024 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. 2022- 23. 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 Nerulkar 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; 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income (Exemption), Mumbai Has Made All The Correspondence As Well

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

Section 10ASection 80G

grounds at the time of hearing;” 2. There was delay of 324 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 30.03.2024 which resulted in delay by 324 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

Sujan Mohinder Charitable Trust, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 2(2) Exemption, New Delhi

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 539/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sujan Mohinder Charitable Trust, Vs Ito, 8, Eastern Avenue, Ward 2(2) Exemption, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 065. Pan: Aaats7083F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Vandana Bhandari, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-40/10374/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 28.12.2019 Passed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Ito, Exemption, Ward 2(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust Created By A Trust Deed Dated 6Th March, 2. 1978 & Is Registered U/S 12A Of The Act. The Assessee’S Case Was Picked Up For Scrutiny & The Ao Examined The Cash Deposits Of Rs.34,53,730/- During The Demonetization Period & Further Observed That During The Relevant Assessment Year No Return Has Been Filed By The Assessee Either U/S 139 Of The Act Or In Response To Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act. Accordingly, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 144 Of The Act Making An Addition Of Rs.1,22,87,399/- U/S 69A Of The Act On Account Of Following Show Cause Notice:-

For Appellant: Ms Vandana Bhandari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 11Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

delay in filing of Form 10 by holding as follows:- “6.4 In view of the above, the appellant is advised to apply for condonation of delay in filing Audit report in Form-10. From the above the power to condone the delay in filing audit report in form 10 vests ... with return of income is a procedural omission and cannot be an impediment in law in claiming the exemption, we allow this appeal condoning the delay in filing the Audit Report in Form No. 10B. However, we also upon condoning the delay, restore the matter to the file

Manav Malik, Noida vs. ACIT Circle 5(2)(2), Gautam Budh Nagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2293/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Manav Malik, Vs Acit, B-146, Sector-19, Circle 5(2)(2), Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh – 201 301. Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Apzpm1646L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Kirti Bindal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024

For Appellant: Ms Kirti Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). 2. At the outset, the ld. AR has pointed out that an application for condonation of delay stands filed in regard to which it was submitted that during the relevant time when the appeal was supposed to be filed before the Tribunal

Sanjay Kumar, Nighasan vs. Income Tax Officer (NFAC), AO Assessment Unit(NFAC), New Delhi

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

ITA 135/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2018-19 Sanjay Kumar V. The Ito (Nfac) 230, Khairi Garh Assessment Unit Nighasan New Delhi Kheri Pan:Fsmpk7383H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Kumar (Assessee) Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26 06 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 06 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar (Assessee)For Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT(DR)

Section 144Section 250

whereas the assessee had filed the appeal only on 07.08.2023 with a delay of 107 days. The assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by medical certificates, stating therein that “There is a delay of 102 days in fling of appeal. The delay ... have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We find that the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay supported by medical certificates, as per which, the assessee was suffering from Muscular Dystrophy and undergoing with Muscular Dystrophy Treatment since August, 2022 in Sanjay Gandhi

Gopalkrishna Naginbhai Patel, Petlad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

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

ITA 545/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Against The Appellate Order Dated 8Th May, 2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax(Appeals),National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi( Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052644110(1))

For Appellant: Shri B.T. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

appeal was filed on 27th March, 2024. The assessee has filed an application praying for condonation of delay and affidavit to that effect is also now filed( for which liberty was granted by the Bench) and which are placed on record in file. It was explained by the ld. counsel ... assessee in the application as well affidavit praying condonation of delay in filing this appeal with ITAT , that the assessee has not received the notices issued by the CIT(A) as the email ID given by the assessee was that of C.A. Shri Vikas Jain and the said

Indian Medical Association, Pune vs. Addl-JCIT(A)-1 Visakhapatnam, E-Order

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 772/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.772/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Indian Medical Association, V The Addl-Jcit(A)-I, Pcb Branch, Niramaya S Visakhapatnam, E-Order. Hospital, Behind Post Office, Chinchwad Station, Pune – 411019. Pan: Aabti0892B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Visakhapatnam Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 31.01.2024 For The A.Y.2016-17 Emanating From The Order U/Sec.143(1) Of The Act Dated 02.01.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Exemption U/S 11: The Learned A.O Has Erred In Confirming The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.33,84,440/- As Against Returned Income Of Rs 31,040/- Indian Medical Association [A]

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)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

Greaves Saommha Kamgar Sahakari Path Pedhi Maryadit, Pune vs. Pr. CIT-3, Pune

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

ITA 345/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.345/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna &For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR

Section 5

delay of about 330 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant had filed a petition praying for condonation of delay. We have gone through the averments made in the condonation petition and find it relevant to refer to the following decisions and their ratios ... Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT, 389 ITR 250 (Bom.) held that in the matter of condonation of delay an overall view in the larger interest of justice has to be taken. None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless the Court

Deepak Mahadev Mane, Murgud vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Kolhapur, Kolhapur

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

ITA 993/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

present appeal is filed belatedly i.e. with the delay of 106 days. The appellant furnished an application/ affidavit praying for condonation of delay in the circumstances mentioned therein. Ld. DR could not controvert the averments made in the above affidavit. We are of the considered opinion that the reasons mentioned

Priyadarshini Kanya Vidyalaya, Ghughus vs. ITO, TDS WD.-52, Chandrapur

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

ITA 50/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed A. LakkadshaFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

assessee on technical grounds without condoning delay in filing appeals, although, the assessee has filed petition for ITA No. 3495 to 3504/Chny/2019 condonation of delay. We find that the issue involved in the present appeals filed by the assessee is on levy of late fee u/s.234E

Mannur Ramjee Rajkumar Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO Ncw 5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 980/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.980/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mannur Ramjee Rajkumar Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, New No.7, Old No.4, Vs. Corporate Ward 3 (3) 1St Cross, Amman Koil Street, Chennai. Seethammal Colony Extn, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Pan: Aaepr 7326J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21.03.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 On 04.08.2017 Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.2,64,51,270/-. The Cpc, Bangalore Passed The Order U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘’The Act’) Dated 28.03.2019 Determining The Taxable Total Income At Rs.2,95,12,060/-. Being Aggrieved, Assessee Challenged The Said Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Before The Ld.Cit(A) Wherein The Assessee Has Not Given Proper Chance To Explain The Reason For Delay In Filing Appeal Hence, The Ld.Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Ex-Parte.

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(1)

Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others167 ITR 471 (SC) and N. Balakrishnan V. M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222 relating to condonation of delay in filing appeal. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file ... adjudication on condonation of delay in filing appeal as well as on merits if after condoning delay appeal is admitted by ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) will provide proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee during the hearing of the appeal afresh. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case

Chirangi Lal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(3), Jaipur

Appeal is hereby disposed off for statistical purposes

ITA 362/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Learned Cit(A)/Nfac, Challenging Order Dated 27.12.2017, Passed By The Assessing Officer. Vide Impugned Order, Learned Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 250Section 68

above, impugned order is dated 14.07.2023. The assessee filed present appeal after 190 days. Therefore, the appeal is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. 3. Arguments heard. File perused. 4. On the point of condonation of delay, ld. AR for the assessee- appellant-applicant has referred ... mail ID of ashishkhandelwalca@gmail.com i.e. the AR representing the applicant before this Appellate Tribunal, and as such the application, seeking condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed. 6. Admittedly, while furnishing Form 35, appellant furnished e-mail address i.e. ashishkhandelwalca@gmail.com i.e. of the Ld. AR, representing the applicant-assessee before

Hemendra Pranjivan Bosmiya, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 987/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Renu Jauhri

delay of 506 days in filing these appeals before the Hon’ble Tribunal. The Assesse has filed an affidavit substantiating the facts for condonation of delay and we consider it is appropriate to refer to the notarised affidavit of the asssessee read as under: “I HEMENDRA PRANJIVAN BOSMIYA (PAN : AARPBO677P ... tests and considerations which had no bearing or nexus with issue at hand-Tribunal, therefore, erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone delay-Explanation placed on affidavit was not contested nor Court found that from such explanation, High Court could not arrive at conclusion that assessee

Late Mr. Deven Jaysukhlal Shah (Thru Legal Heir- Atit Deven Shah), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 523/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Bandi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 69A

appeal. 4. We note that there is delay of 200 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. From the facts narrated in the affidavit, it is noted that assessee was shot dead ... default committed of delay in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we find it appropriate to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income on 27.03.2014 reporting total

Romofy Mercantile Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-4(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 386/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: None

Section 250

that there is a delay of 49 days in filing the instant appeal. Though the assessee has filed an affidavit in support of condonation of delay, however, there is no proper application is available on record for condonation of delay and even otherwise the assessee is not present despite sending ... parte and there is a delay of 49 days in filing the instant appeal, which is not supported by any application for condonation of delay, therefore, we are inclined to dismiss this appeal being not maintainable. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed in limine

Paresh Vanilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 29(2)(5)/ Now 41(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1614/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

wherein learned 2 Paresh Vanilal Shah CIT(A) has dismissed assessee's appeal upon rejection of assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing the same. 2. At the very outset, learned representative for the appellant assessee has submitted that the appeal was physically filed before learned ... Rules 1962. First 3 Paresh Vanilal Shah appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority solely upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay in filing the same. The limitation period for filing an appeal before learned CIT(A) u/s. 249(2) of the Act is 30 days

Agrawal Distilleries Pvt Ltd, Indore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Delhi

Appeal are allowed:

ITA 1185/MUM/2024[2015-2016 Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024

Bench: the Tribunal. 4. We would first take up ITA No. 1173/Mum/2024 [Financial Year 2012-13: Quarter 2/Form 27EQ] as the lead matter which has been preferred by the Assessee challenging the order, dated 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel

Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 200A(3)Section 206C(3)Section 234E

note that there is a delay of 57 days in filing the appeal. On perusal of application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal we are of the view that the Appellant had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in the prescribed time. The Appellant had base ... aforesaid facts and circumstances, there was a delay of 57 days in filing the appeal. In view of the aforesaid explanation, we condone the delay of 57 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised in the appeal on merits. Since all the grounds raised pertain

Agrawal Distilleries Pvt Ltd, Indore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

Appeal are allowed:

ITA 1181/MUM/2024[2014-2015 (Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel

Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 200A(3)Section 206C(3)Section 234E

Agrawal Distilleries Pvt Ltd, Indore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

Appeal are allowed:

ITA 1173/MUM/2024[2013-2014 (Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel

Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 200A(3)Section 206C(3)Section 234E

Agrawal Distilleries Pvt Ltd, Indore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

Appeal are allowed:

ITA 1165/MUM/2024[2015-2016 (Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel

Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 200A(3)Section 206C(3)Section 234E

Akshay Aniruddha Mestry, Mumbai vs. ITO-24(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4823/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Dasija, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R

Section 250

outset, we observe that there is a delay of 253 days in filing the instant appeal. The Assessee by filing a petition for condonation of delay along with duly sworn affidavit claimed that it seems that the impugned order was served vide email on 17.02.2023 whereas it is a fact ... doubt the cause shown by the Assessee qua delay in filing the instant appeal appears to be unreasonable, unconvincing and insufficient for condonation of delay and therefore the Assessee does not deserve any leniency, however, as the Assessee has prayed that for the substantial justice one more opportunity