← 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

Patodia Forgings and Gears Limited, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE

ITA 368/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.368/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Patodia Forgings & Gears Ltd. 105/2, Village Mahalunge, Chakan Rd., Chakan, Pune-410501 Pan : Aaecp9266C . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Sarvesh Khandelwal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sourabh Nayak [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 80I

accompanying therewith a ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 4 Patodia Forgings and Gears Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No.368/PUN/2024 AY:2018-19 petition for condonation of delay stating therein the circumstance due to which said delay was caused. Faced with the situation, the Ld. NFAC rejected to entertain the appeal

Barsopurti Exim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 103/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250

Registry, we find that there is a delay of 6 (six) days in filing of the instant appeal. There is no petition for condonation of delay. We observe, that on the all the earlier occasions of hearing, the assessee either has not appeared or has been seeking adjournments. It appears ... point, we are well aware that the law I.T.A. No. 103/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Barsopurti Exim Pvt. Ltd. 2 empowers us to condone a delay which has occurred on account of a bona-fide mistake if a petition/prayer/application for condonation to that effect providing satisfactory explanation for the delay

Association of Management of Private Schools, Coimbatore vs. CIT Exemption, Chennai

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

ITA 823/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 May 2024

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.823/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

short]. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 494 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay in support of notarized affidavit. In the petition, the assessee has submitted as under: 2 I.T.A. No.823/Chny/24 The captioned appeal was filed in the Registry ... time due to change of management of its Association. 3 I.T.A. No.823/Chny/24 4. The ld. DR Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT vehemently opposed in condoning the delay and argued that no sufficient cause for the delay was shown by the assessee in the said petition. We note that change of management

Mukesh Kumar, Bhiwadi Rajasthan vs. Income Tax Deparmtent Alwar, Alwar Rajasthan

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

ITA 487/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Madan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has submitted an 2 MUKESH KUMAR VS ITO, WARD-BHIWADI application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit praying therein that there was health issue of his counsel and thus the delay took place in filing the appeal

Rajesh Balda, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 655/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra .B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 270A

causing the considerable delay. The Ld.AR in respect of the delay before the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that, in form 35, the request for condonation of delay was sought for by submitting as under: “1) Assessment Order and Demand Notice passed by the learned Assessing Officer are dated 26.09.2022. Therefore ... natural justice warrant that substantial justice must be pitted against technicalities. Such kind of arguments from the Ld.DR is absolutely unappreciated. We therefore condone the delay caused in filing appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) in ITA No. 654/Bang/2024. We also remand all the appeals back to the Ld.CIT

Rajesh Balda, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 654/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra .B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 270A

causing the considerable delay. The Ld.AR in respect of the delay before the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that, in form 35, the request for condonation of delay was sought for by submitting as under: “1) Assessment Order and Demand Notice passed by the learned Assessing Officer are dated 26.09.2022. Therefore ... natural justice warrant that substantial justice must be pitted against technicalities. Such kind of arguments from the Ld.DR is absolutely unappreciated. We therefore condone the delay caused in filing appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) in ITA No. 654/Bang/2024. We also remand all the appeals back to the Ld.CIT

Rajesh Balda, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), Banglaore

ITA 653/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra .B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 270A

causing the considerable delay. The Ld.AR in respect of the delay before the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that, in form 35, the request for condonation of delay was sought for by submitting as under: “1) Assessment Order and Demand Notice passed by the learned Assessing Officer are dated 26.09.2022. Therefore

Mehar Developers Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 17(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed, as indicated

ITA 1830/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Pushpdeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)

further submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, the CBDT has issued a circular no. 19/2023, dated 23rd October, 2023, regarding condonation of delay in filing of Form 10IC for Assessment Year 2021- 22. In pursuance, thereof, the assessee has filed an application before the Ld. AO, ward ... electronically within a specified time frame. 3.1 The assessee satisfies all the conditions as specified under the said circular and is eligible for condonation of delay of its late filing of Page 3 of 5 ITA No.- 1830/Del/2023 Mehar Developers Pvt. Ltd. Form 10-IC and the Ld. AO granted

Ctr Manufacturing Industries Private Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 347/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 156Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

levy of penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the Act.” 3. There is a delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay has been filed along with an affidavit sworn by the Managing Director of the assessee company containing the reasons for delay in filing ... No.347/PUN/2024, AY 2016-17 the appeal. After hearing the Ld. Representative of the parties, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal. 4. Briefly stated, the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing flange mounted on load tap changers (OLTC) and radiators for transformers

Sachin Kumar Kamal Zanwar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Parbhani

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

ITA 795/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.795/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sachin Kumar Kamal Zanwar, Vs. Ito, Parbhani Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune 411 030 Maharashtra Pan : Aaipz0099C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Parag Rathi
Section 143(2)Section 148

record. At the outset, I find that the appeal is filed with a delay of 1782 days. The appellant filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay. I had carefully perused the contents 3 of the affidavit and find that the appellant only explained the reasons for non-compliance before ... delay in filing the appeal the Tribunal. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to condone the delay of 1782 days, accordingly appeal is dismissed in limine, without condoning the delay. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

M/S Regal Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 454/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

submissions and other relevant details. Moreover, the ld. AR stated that while passing the impugned order, ld. CIT(A) without considering the condonation of delay of 85 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before him. Although, in this regard assessee has filed an affidavit in support ... raised in the instant appeal may be restored to the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 3. Per contra, ld. DR was fair enough not to oppose this request of the ld. counsel

Mohammed Khalid Masud, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-33, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 171/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.171/Kol/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mohammed Khalid Masud……..…..……............…...……………....Appellant 70, Karaya Road, Circus Row Kolkata - 700019. [Pan:Afapm6677G] Vs. Acit, Circle-33, Kolkata…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishak Bansal, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Divakar Chakraborty, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21 , 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 389 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Which Is Further Supported By An Affidavit Of The Petitioner Namely Mohammed Khalid Masud. Considering The Submissions Made In The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned.

Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The appeal is time barred by 389 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, which is further supported by an affidavit of the petitioner namely Mohammed Khalid Masud. Considering the submissions made in the affidavit

Late Shri Balkrishan Joshi (Through Legal Heir Shri Bhoopendra Joshi), Indore vs. The Income Tax Officer-5(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed partly

ITA 402/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Late Shri Balkrishan Joshi Income-Tax Officer, (Through L/H Shri 5(1), Bhoopendra Joshi), Indore बनाम/ 541, Alok Nagar, Vs. Kanadia Road, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abjpj 0180 C Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Bavesh Agrawal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.05.2024

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

Late Shri Bal Krishna Joshi through L/H Shri Bhoopendra Joshi, Indore. ITA No. 402/Ind/2023 – AY 2008-09 assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp. Referring to same, Ld. AR submitted that the impugned order was served by department to the e-mail

Velusamy Karpagam, Tirupur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Tirupur

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 740/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.740/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Velusamy Karpagam Income Tax Officer 10/65, 66, Appachi Nagar, 3Rd Street, बनाम/ Vs. Ward 1(3), Kongu Main Road, Tirupur – 641 607. Tirupur. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bxzpk-7124-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, (Advocate)– Ld.Ar ""थ" कीओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V.Srinivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, (Advocate)– Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Srinivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

delay. 2. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made certain additions. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 149 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. Though the assessee has remained negligent, however, keeping in mind

Rajapalayam Sivakasi Round Table Trust, Sivakasi vs. ITO, Ward 1, Virudhunagar

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 724/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.724/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Rajapalayam Sivakasi Round Table Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Vs. Trust Ward 1, 488, Kamarajar Road, Sivakasi-626123 Virudhunagar. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aactr-7627-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G. Tarun (Advocate)-Ld.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V.Srinivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Srinivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

made certain adjustment in the aforesaid intimation of assessee trust. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of condonation of delay of approx. 7 months. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has prayed for adjudication of the appeal on merits which

Manish Choudhary, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(3), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 798/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

aside and matter may be restored to his file with direction to decide the appeal on merit after condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. 4. Learned DR opposed the submissions and relied on the order of learned CIT(A). 5. I have heard rival submissions and perused ... matter is restored to the file of learned CIT(A) to give an opportunity to the assessee to file application for condonation of delay, supported with affidavit and after determination of the same, decide the appeal on merit, in accordance with law. 6. Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Rakesh Kumar Goel, New Rajdhani Enclave vs. CIT, NFAC

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

ITA 3380/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Cit 173, New Rajdhani Enclave, Nfac Anand Vihar, S.O. Laxmi Nagar, East Delhi-110092 Pan No.Aaepg7376H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 6

before 13.09.2023 but it was actually filed on 27.11.2023 with a delay of 76 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit alongwith condonation of delay application stated the reason that due to health issue he was not filed the appeal in time. Delay was caused beyond control of the assessee ... find the cause as reasonable and hence condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee has filed the Income Tax return of A.Y. 2018-19 on 22.02.2019 declaring a total income of Rs.6,88,00,250/-. The case was selected

Jamnagar Area Development Authority, Jamnagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2 - Exemption, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 153/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(15)

assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), there was a delay of 13 days in filing of appeal. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing of the appeal, however, the CIT(A) rejected the condonation request submitted by the assessee and dismissed the appeal

Tapovan Education Trust, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, CPC, Banglore

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

ITA 2349/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 11Section 12ASection 80G

denial of registration under Section 80G of the Act is time barred by approximately 4½ years. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay, in which it was submitted that the delay in filing appeal against the order denying registration to the assessee / applicant trust was on account of delay ... grant of registration under Section 12A and under Section 80G of the Act. 4. In response, the Ld. D.R. opposed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that since the assessee has been running an educational institution, and it is also getting accounts audited, there is no reasonable

Tapovan Education Trust, Vadodara vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Vadodara

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

ITA 2311/AHD/2017[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 11Section 12ASection 80G

denial of registration under Section 80G of the Act is time barred by approximately 4½ years. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay, in which it was submitted that the delay in filing appeal against the order denying registration to the assessee / applicant trust was on account of delay ... grant of registration under Section 12A and under Section 80G of the Act. 4. In response, the Ld. D.R. opposed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that since the assessee has been running an educational institution, and it is also getting accounts audited, there is no reasonable