← 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

Mudit Kumar Bajaj, Ujjain vs. ITO-1(2), Ujjain

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

ITA 550/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore18 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aezpb2621P Assessee By Ms. Nupur Ladha & Shri Vaibhav Siroliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 40A(3)

Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 14 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported Mudi Kumar Bajaj by affidavit of the assessee. We have heard the Ld. AR as well as Ld. DR on condonation

Sunil Kumar Sivadasan, Kodaikanal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dindigul

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.290/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Sunil Kumar Sivadasan Ito Ward-1, बनाम/ No.1, Prop. Vishuthi Constructions Dindigul. Sidda Vaidya Salai, Anna Salai, Vs. Kodaikanal-624 101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aozpk-8325-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir (Advocate) -Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Mukundan (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir (Advocate) -Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Mukundan (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 147Section 69A

notice that the assessee has preferred petition u/s 119(2)(b) before Hon’ble CBDT on 11-06-2024 requesting for condonation of delay in payment in IDS-2016. The same is pending for disposal and the same would have material bearing on the impugned assessment. Considering the same

Venkataramanappa Suma, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikaballapur

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

ITA 774/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Matta Padma, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 249Section 249(3)

self-contradictory and without any basis and not backed by any specific details and evidences, as has been brought out above. For condonation of delay the existence of "sufficient cause" is sine-qua- non and a condition precedent. But it is evident that the appellant's request for condonation ... deserves to be condoned. Besides the above, the Id. AR also prayed that the matter may be set aside to the AO after condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Id. CIT(A) as there was no representation from the side of the assessee during the assessment proceedings

M/S Dhanlaxmi Builders & Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT-25(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 207/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 68

direction to decide the appeal on merits after affording an opportunity to the assessee. 7. Learned DR has opposed the application for condonation of delay and supported the impugned order. 8. We have perused the affidavits filed on behalf of Mr. Neeraj Chaturvedi accountant and Mr. Sunil Vasanji Sangoi, Managing ... Partner of the firm, submitted in support of application for the condonation of delay. The grounds taken in respect of the lack of communication amongst assessee’s employees interse in both affidavits are unrebutted. There seems sufficient cause for the condonation of said delay. In the interest of justice

Vikalp Goutam Pawar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-33(1)(7), Mumbai

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

ITA 1355/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Goutam Pawar 2. The present appeal is time barred by 40 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay which is duly supported by the affidavit of the assessee. In the aforesaid application, the assessee submitted that he did not receive the impugned ... circumstances beyond his control and there is no malafide intention in filing the present appeal belatedly. Accordingly, the assessee prayed for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. 3. We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant

Bombay Mercantile Co-Op Bank Ltd Employees Co-Op Credit Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-17(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1325/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe a/w Asavari KadamFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatta (SR DR)
Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253

passing the impugned order ex-parte, without providing an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant on the ground that there was no condonation of delay application filed along with the appeal, without appreciating the facts of the case. The impugned order therefore has been passed on a gross violation ... liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 2. Erred in passing the impugned order on the ground that no application for condonation of delay was filed by the Appellant without appreciating the fact that there was no delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) inasmuch

DCIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Shrenik Dheerajmal Siroya, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012-

ITA 3031/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya/Prakash BohraFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh
Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(iii)

appeal for the assessment year 2014-15 is delayed by 264 days. Along with the present appeals, the Revenue has filed applications seeking condonation of delay duly signed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”), wherein it has been submitted that due to technical glitch the impugned orders passed by the learned ... that due to the aforesaid circumstances the present appeals are delayed. 3. We find that the reasons stated by the AO for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag

DCIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Shrenik Dheerajmal Siroya, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012-

ITA 3030/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya/Prakash BohraFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh
Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(iii)

appeal for the assessment year 2014-15 is delayed by 264 days. Along with the present appeals, the Revenue has filed applications seeking condonation of delay duly signed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”), wherein it has been submitted that due to technical glitch the impugned orders passed by the learned ... that due to the aforesaid circumstances the present appeals are delayed. 3. We find that the reasons stated by the AO for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag

DCIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Shrenik Dheerajmal Siroya, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012-

ITA 3004/MUM/2023[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya/Prakash BohraFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh
Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(iii)

appeal for the assessment year 2014-15 is delayed by 264 days. Along with the present appeals, the Revenue has filed applications seeking condonation of delay duly signed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”), wherein it has been submitted that due to technical glitch the impugned orders passed by the learned ... that due to the aforesaid circumstances the present appeals are delayed. 3. We find that the reasons stated by the AO for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag

Anil Jain, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 1192/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2011-12

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

appeal of the assessee for adjudication on merits owing to delay in filing appeal by 36 days. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and thus declined to proceed in the matter. 3.1 Section 249(2) of the Act contemplates that appeal shall be presented within 30 days from ... straightjacket formula to come to conclusion as to whether the sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not while seeking condonation of delay. The delay of 36 days is very nominal delay and do not appeal to cause any serious prejudice to the interest of the revenue attributable

Shiksha Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 441/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 119Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

with regard to the power of Central Board of Direct Taxes issuing instructions to subordinate authorities on the issue of condonation of delay in filing Form No 10B for Assessment year 2018-19. In that case the assessee was a charitable institution registered under section 12AA, claimed exemption under section ... assessee was well aware that there was a delay in filing Form 10B, however assessee seemed to have not made any application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B before concerned P Commissioner/Commissioner/Director of Income-tax as provided under section 119(2). Therefore on the question of whether there

Great Waves Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 229/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : - Great Waves Trust The Commissioner Of Income Tax A-3, Aryaman Bungalows Vs (Exemption) Nr.Railway Crossing Ahmedabad Thaltej Shilaj Road Thaltej Ahmedabad – 380 059 Pan: Aadtg 7741 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukesh M. Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh m. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)

right to add, amend, alter, delete, change or modify any or all grounds of appeal before or at the time of the hearing.” Condonation of delay: 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 13 days in filing the above appeal. The assessee has filed an application ... condonation of delay along with notarized Affidavit dated 08/02/2024. In the said application, it is mentioned that due to inadvertent mistake of Shri Chandresh Shah, the partner of the firm, M/S Mukesh M. Shah, Chartered Accountants, to whom the assignment was given, firm could not file the appeal before time

Shri Mahakali Petroleum, Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Patan

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

ITA 815/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Mahakali Petroleum Vs. Ito, Ward-1 Through Its Proprietor Patan. Rajnikant Kantilal Patel 2, Laxminagar Society Nr.Sharda Society St Workshop Road Mehsana 384 002. Pan : Aagfs 5696 C.

Section 250

appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise. Application for condonation of delay 3. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 2198 days in filing of the present appeal against the order passed ... Appeals). 2 The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, certain additions were made by the assessing officer, against which the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted

Ashokkumar Raghunathdas Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Aaykar Bhawan, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on merits

ITA 1078/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2017-18 Ashokkumar Raghnathdas Agrawal Vs. Ito, Ward-5(3)(4) B-59, 3Rd Floor, Ahmedabad. Sumel Business Park-1 B/H. New Cloth Market Raipur, Ahmedabad Pan : Abhpa 1665 R

For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 250Section 68Section 69A

also conducting the assessment proceedings inappropriately, thus vitiating the entire assessment proceedings and rendering the assessment order invalid." 3 4. Application for condonation of delay At the outset, we note that the present appeal is delayed by a period of 10 days, for which the assessee had filed application ... condonation of delay, along with Affidavit. The assessee submitted that the delay is owing to the fact that the assessee is of advance old age and due to oversight, the assessee did not check his email ID, and thereafter the assessee was travelling abroad and therefore, there was a delay

Hasmukhbhai Hansraj Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(7), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1377/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-16 Hasmukhbhai Hansraj Patel Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(3)(7) C-202, Suvas Residency Ahmedabad. Opp: Maghmalhar Society Nikol Road Ahmedabad 382350. Pan : Bpdpp 1078 Q

For Appellant: Shri Seem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69A

outset we observe that there is a delay of 82 days in filing of the present appeal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay in which, the assessee submitted that during the period under consideration, the assessee’s wife was undergoing medical treatment on account of gynecological problems

Sarvodaya Credit Co-Op Society Ltd, Udupi vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward-1 & Tps, Udupi

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

ITA 745/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Sarvodaya Credit Co-Operative Vs. Ito, Society Ltd., Ward – 1 & Tps, Carstreet Barkur, Brahmavara Udupi, Udupi. Udupi – 576 210. Pan : Aaeas 9576 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ramnathan, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ramnathan, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144Section 250Section 263Section 40Section 43B

invoking the provisions under section 40(a)(ia). 4. The Learned CIT(A) failed to consider the delay reason and ought to have condoned the delay and heard the matter on merit. 5. Without prejudice, the impugned additions are excessively arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be deleted in full ... follows: 3. At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without condoning the delay of 147 days in filing the appeal before him. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follows: “3.1.2 A careful examination

Chiranjeevi Sahini, Srikakulam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

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

ITA 189/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Smt. A. Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 144(1)(b)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

absence of any cogent explanation / reason to substantiate the belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before ... facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in refusing to condone the delay of 125 days in filing the appeal and dismissing the appeal in limine. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time

Bit Corp Private Limited, Guntur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

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

ITA 181/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.181/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2018-19) M/S Bitcorp Private Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Dr.No.8-14-28, Tobacco Colony Income Tax Mangalagiri Road Circle-1(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aadcb4080D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

तधरीख/ Date of Hearing : 06.05.2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 13.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri S.Balakrishnan Accountant Member : Condonation of Delay : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)],National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi ... with the delay of 18 2 I.T.A. No.181/Viz/2023 A.Y 2018-19 M/s Bitcorp Pvt. Ltd., Guntur days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the reason for delay in filing the appeal belatedly was due to the closure of the business operations of the company

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Delhi vs. Adm Agro Industries Kot & Akola Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 839/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CA
Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 92C

assessment year 2009-10. 2. The appeal is time barred by 16 days; the Assessing Officer (AO) has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee has not raised any serious objection in 2 condoning the delay. After perusal

Sharma Yegnanarayana Praturi, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 542/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.542/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Sharma Yegnnarayana Vs. Income Tax Officer Praturi, Hyderabad (International Pan:Biopp9553A Taxation)2, Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

submitted that there was reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time and the AR requested for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. During the course of argument, we inquired from the assessee as to when the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order and Page ... Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the reasons given by the assessee in the petition for condonation of delay filled before the ld.CIT(A) and he has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the assessee. Page