← 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

Chiranabin, Howrah vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

ITA 920/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)

Appeal No. 920 /Kol/2024 [Chiranabin (PAN: AAAAAC3200F) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kolkata, filed by the Appellant. Sir/s Subject: Prayer FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL against rejection of registration for grant of registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for more ... your lordship in due course. So, the Appellant filled an application cum declaration in form of affidavit submits before your Bench for praying condonation of delay. Therefore, on the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant earnestly request your goodself before your Bench for considering the same

Liberal Association for Movement of People, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

ITA 889/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)

Liberal Association for Movement of People (PAN: AAATL1261C) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kolkata, filed by the Appellant. Sir/s Subject: Prayer FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL against rejection of registration for grant of registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)) of the Income ... your lordship in due course. So, the Appellant filled an application cum declaration in form of affidavit submits before your Bench for praying condonation of delay. Therefore, on the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant earnestly request your goodself before your Bench for considering the same

Gana Unnayan Parshad, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

ITA 836/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

836/Kol/2024 [Gana Unnayan Parshad (PAN: AAATG2143G) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kolkata, filed by the Appellant. Sir/s Subject: Prayer FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL against rejection of registration for grant of registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)) and under clause (iii) of second proviso ... your lordship in due course. So, the Appellant filled an application cum declaration in form of affidavit submits before your Bench for praying condonation of delay. Therefore, on the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant earnestly request your goodself before your Bench for considering the same. Page

Gana Unnayan Parshad, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

ITA 835/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)Section 80G

836/Kol/2024 [Gana Unnayan Parshad (PAN: AAATG2143G) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kolkata, filed by the Appellant. Sir/s Subject: Prayer FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL against rejection of registration for grant of registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)) and under clause (iii) of second proviso ... your lordship in due course. So, the Appellant filled an application cum declaration in form of affidavit submits before your Bench for praying condonation of delay. Therefore, on the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant earnestly request your goodself before your Bench for considering the same. Page

Srividya Religious and Charitable Foundation Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 755/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

Srividya Religious and Charitable Foundation Trust (PAN: AAHTS8284P) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kolkata, filed by the Appellant. Sir/s Subject: Prayer FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL against rejection of registration for grant of registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)) and under clause (iii) of second proviso ... your lordship in due course. So, the Appellant filled an application cum declaration in form of affidavit submits before your Bench for praying condonation of delay. Therefore, on the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant earnestly request your goodself before your Bench for considering the same. Page

Srividya Religious and Charitable Foundation Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 754/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)Section 80G

Srividya Religious and Charitable Foundation Trust (PAN: AAHTS8284P) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kolkata, filed by the Appellant. Sir/s Subject: Prayer FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL against rejection of registration for grant of registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)) and under clause (iii) of second proviso ... your lordship in due course. So, the Appellant filled an application cum declaration in form of affidavit submits before your Bench for praying condonation of delay. Therefore, on the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant earnestly request your goodself before your Bench for considering the same. Page

Agami Nirman 2003, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

ITA 548/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)Section 80G

/Kol/2024 [Agami Nirman 2003 (PAN: AABAA1502H) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kolkata, filed by the Appellant. Sir/s Subject: Prayer FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL against rejection of registration for grant of registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)) and under clause (iii) of second proviso ... your lordship in due course. So, the Appellant filled an application cum declaration in form of affidavit submits before your Bench for praying condonation of delay. Therefore, on the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant earnestly request your goodself before your Bench for considering the same. Page

Agami Nirman 2003, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

ITA 547/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

/Kol/2024 [Agami Nirman 2003 (PAN: AABAA1502H) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kolkata, filed by the Appellant. Sir/s Subject: Prayer FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL against rejection of registration for grant of registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)) and under clause (iii) of second proviso ... your lordship in due course. So, the Appellant filled an application cum declaration in form of affidavit submits before your Bench for praying condonation of delay. Therefore, on the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant earnestly request your goodself before your Bench for considering the same. Page

Ramakrishna Rao, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 541/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

filing an appeal against the said appellate order. At the time of hearing, since ld. DR did not raise any serious objection for condoning the delay, we hereby condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. Though the assessee has raised four grounds of appeal but the sole ... case, dismissed the assessee’s appeal on account of delay of 254 days because the reasons assigned were not sufficient for condonation of delay. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 Ramakrishna Rao Chintalapudi, AY: 2020-21. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused

Topmost Dealmark Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 540/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 540/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Topmost Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 9(1), 5/1, 4Th Floor Vs Kolkata Room No. 125, Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaect0270C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 20/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 26 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. Affidavit Has Been Filed In Support Of The Prayer For Condonation Of Delay & The Delay Is Mainly On Account Of The Ill Health Of The Accountant Of The Assessee Concern Which Restrained Him To Look After The Regular Office Affairs & Could Not Check The Income Tax Portal From Time To Time. At A Later Stage When It Was Found That Ex-Parte Order Has Already Been Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before This Tribunal. Under These Circumstances

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 35DSection 68

that there is a delay of 26 days in filing of this appeal. Affidavit has been filed in support of the prayer for condonation of delay and the delay is mainly on account of the ill health of the accountant of the assessee concern which restrained him to look after ... where the assessee was prevented by sufficient and bonafide cause from filing this appeal on time, we deem it fit to condone the delay and admit the captioned appeal for hearing on merits. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that the assessee

Bijender Singh, Alipurduar vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 447/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 445 To 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Alipurduar Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Dsnps3610C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A)-10, Mumbai (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 20 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause From Filing This Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. Accordingly, We

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 20 days in filing of these appeals. There is a petition for condonation of delay stating therein, the reasons for the delay. On perusal of the petition, we are convinced that the assessee was prevented for reasonable cause from filing ... appeal in prescribed time limit. Accordingly, we 2 I.T.A. No. 445 to 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh condone the delay and admit all the captioned appeals for hearing on merits. 3. As the issues involved in these appeals are identical, for the sake

Bijender Singh, Alipurduar vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 446/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 445 To 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Alipurduar Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Dsnps3610C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A)-10, Mumbai (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 20 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause From Filing This Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. Accordingly, We

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 20 days in filing of these appeals. There is a petition for condonation of delay stating therein, the reasons for the delay. On perusal of the petition, we are convinced that the assessee was prevented for reasonable cause from filing ... appeal in prescribed time limit. Accordingly, we 2 I.T.A. No. 445 to 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh condone the delay and admit all the captioned appeals for hearing on merits. 3. As the issues involved in these appeals are identical, for the sake

Bijender Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 445/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 445 To 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Alipurduar Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Dsnps3610C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A)-10, Mumbai (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 20 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause From Filing This Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. Accordingly, We

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 20 days in filing of these appeals. There is a petition for condonation of delay stating therein, the reasons for the delay. On perusal of the petition, we are convinced that the assessee was prevented for reasonable cause from filing ... appeal in prescribed time limit. Accordingly, we 2 I.T.A. No. 445 to 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh condone the delay and admit all the captioned appeals for hearing on merits. 3. As the issues involved in these appeals are identical, for the sake

Prasad Polyfab, Chhatral vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal Addl JCIT A 3, Commissioner Appeal

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 665/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.663, 664 & 665/Chny/2024 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2023-24 Prasad Polyfab, The Commissioner Of Income Plot No.1601, Phase-2, Vs. Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-3, B/H Juni Khodiyar Hotel, Chennai. Chhatral Gidc, Kalol, Gandhinagar – 382 329, Gujarat. [Pan: Aaufp-2961-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथG की ओर से/ Appellant By : None (Petition By Ld. Counsel) IjथG की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M :

For Appellant: None (petition by Ld. Counsel)For Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)

case for exercise of jurisdiction for transfer of its appeals then, one opportunity may be granted to re-file the appeals condoning the delay. 4. We find that the Assessing Officer of the firm is ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar, which is located at Gujarat. As per Rule 4 of Income ... located in Chennai. We grant liberty to the assessee to file fresh appeals before ITAT, Ahmadabad Bench, Gujarat along with petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals. With the aforesaid reasons, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. ITA No.663, 664 & 665/Chny/2024 :- 4 -: 6. In the result

Prasad Polyfab, Chhatral vs. Addljcit (A) Chennai, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 664/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.663, 664 & 665/Chny/2024 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2023-24 Prasad Polyfab, The Commissioner Of Income Plot No.1601, Phase-2, Vs. Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-3, B/H Juni Khodiyar Hotel, Chennai. Chhatral Gidc, Kalol, Gandhinagar – 382 329, Gujarat. [Pan: Aaufp-2961-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथG की ओर से/ Appellant By : None (Petition By Ld. Counsel) IjथG की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M :

For Appellant: None (petition by Ld. Counsel)For Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)

case for exercise of jurisdiction for transfer of its appeals then, one opportunity may be granted to re-file the appeals condoning the delay. 4. We find that the Assessing Officer of the firm is ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar, which is located at Gujarat. As per Rule 4 of Income ... located in Chennai. We grant liberty to the assessee to file fresh appeals before ITAT, Ahmadabad Bench, Gujarat along with petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals. With the aforesaid reasons, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. ITA No.663, 664 & 665/Chny/2024 :- 4 -: 6. In the result

Prasad Polyfab, Chhatral vs. Commissioner of Incometax Appeal, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 663/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.663, 664 & 665/Chny/2024 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2023-24 Prasad Polyfab, The Commissioner Of Income Plot No.1601, Phase-2, Vs. Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-3, B/H Juni Khodiyar Hotel, Chennai. Chhatral Gidc, Kalol, Gandhinagar – 382 329, Gujarat. [Pan: Aaufp-2961-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथG की ओर से/ Appellant By : None (Petition By Ld. Counsel) IjथG की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M :

For Appellant: None (petition by Ld. Counsel)For Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)

case for exercise of jurisdiction for transfer of its appeals then, one opportunity may be granted to re-file the appeals condoning the delay. 4. We find that the Assessing Officer of the firm is ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar, which is located at Gujarat. As per Rule 4 of Income ... located in Chennai. We grant liberty to the assessee to file fresh appeals before ITAT, Ahmadabad Bench, Gujarat along with petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals. With the aforesaid reasons, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. ITA No.663, 664 & 665/Chny/2024 :- 4 -: 6. In the result

Durairaj Vijay, Tondiarpet vs. ITO Non Corp. Ward6(4), Chennai

In the result the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 355/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.355/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Durairaj Vijay Ito, Non-Corp New No.12, Old No.13/1, Varadharaja Ward-6(4)Chennai Perumal Koil Street, Tondiarpet, Chennai-81 [Pan: Aafpv9623H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.L.Janardhanan, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Janardhanan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

appeal or even had any sufficient reasons for such delay…” 4.0 The Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed its appeal without condoning requested delay even though the assesse had sufficient cause, though not mentioned elaborately, for the said delay. It was submitted that the assesse had several personal ... before the first appellate authority. Material available on record also indicates that the assesse has attributed different reasons for justifying its plea for condonation of delay before the first appellate authority as well as this tribunal. On its submissions qua covid-19, the assesse does not get any relief from

Amrutur Ningaiah Gangadharaiah, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 748/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Amrutur Ningaiah Gangadharaiah, 151, 6Th Cross, The Income Tax Bapuji Layout, Officer, Attiguppe, Ward – 3(3)(3), Vijayanagar S.O., Bangalore. Bengaluru North, Vs. Bengaluru – 560 040. Pan: Adppg1594H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravikiran, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 253Section 5Section 69A

submitted that there is a delay of 155 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR has furnished affidavit for condonation of delay that reads as under: Page 5 “APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 The Appellant most respectfully ... condoned by Hon'ble Tribunal. 10. It is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal takes a lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay of 155 days in filing the present appeal against the order of the learned CIT [A] passed under section 250 of the Act before this

Datta Prakash Waster, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bijapur

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

ITA 627/BANG/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Chethan Chogule, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel

communicated to him and he was also down with viral fever due to which there was delay. The ld. AR requested for condonation of delay. 5. After hearing both the parties, it is observed that there are sufficient reasons for the delay and following the judgment

K & P Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1318/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi T A. No. 1318, 1319 & 1320/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693, has held that the following principles must be kept in mind while considering the application for condonation of delay; (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts ... part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice