← 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

Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 809/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

Section 253Section 263Section 5

frame the assessment afresh. 2. The registry has pointed out that the appeal is time-barred by 158 days. A separate application of condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been pleaded that after receipt of the impugned order of the Pr. CIT, the assessee, through its director ... aforesaid circumstances and therefore, the same may be condoned. 3. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has objected to the condonation of delay. 4. After hearing the rival submissions, we are of the view that the assessee has duly explained the delay in filing the appeal and the assessee

Saryu Devi Tiwari, Bhopal vs. ITO 5(3), Bhopal

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

ITA 399/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore07 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisaryu Devi Tiwari Ito-5(3) House No.89, Near Durga Dham Bhopal Mandir, Ashoka Vihar, Ashoka Vs. Garden Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Arhpt0228M Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement .05.2024

Delhi for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 366 days in filing the present appeal the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted ITANo.399/Ind/2023 Saryu Devi Tiwari that the assesse is a Senior citizen ... Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji AIR 1987 SC 1357. 3. On the other hand, Ld. DR has not seriously objected to the condonation of delay. 4. We have considered rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. In form no.35 the assessee has specifically mentioned that notices/communication

Krishan Kumar Yadav, Behror vs. ITO Behror, Behror

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 194/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anand Mathur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 and for 91 days for A.Y. 2012-23 by the assessee for which the assessee filed applications for condonation of delay 4 KRISHAN KUMAR YADAV VS ITO, BEHROR alongwith affidavit praying that the delay took place in attending the case before

Farmers Agriculture Credit Co Operative Society Ltd Koppa, Periapatna vs. Income Tax Officer, Mysuru

ITA 71/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sriram V. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

respectively. 2. There is a delay of 10 days in filing appeal for AY 2016-17. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay and affidavit stating that the order of CIT(A) was received by email. The office of the ITA Nos. 65 & 71/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 18 assessee ... which led to delay of 10 days. It is submitted that the delay is due to sufficient and reasonable cause and requested for condonation of delay. 3. After hearing both the parties, it is observed that there are sufficient reasons for the delay and following the judgment

Farmers Agriculture Society Ltd Koppacredit Co Operative, Periapatna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Mysuru

ITA 65/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sriram V. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

respectively. 2. There is a delay of 10 days in filing appeal for AY 2016-17. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay and affidavit stating that the order of CIT(A) was received by email. The office of the ITA Nos. 65 & 71/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 18 assessee ... which led to delay of 10 days. It is submitted that the delay is due to sufficient and reasonable cause and requested for condonation of delay. 3. After hearing both the parties, it is observed that there are sufficient reasons for the delay and following the judgment

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. P K Krishnan Educational Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3533/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Income Tax Officer P K Krishnan Educational Trust 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building Shree Siddhi Vinayak Engl. Vs. Cumballa Hill, Pedder Road, High School, Hariyali Village Mumbai-400 026 Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400 083 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatp5026F

For Appellant: Shri Mandar Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 44A

Appeals). P.K. Krishnan Educationl Trust; A.Y. 21-22 Learned authorised representative also submitted that it has also filed 07. an application for condonation of delay in filing form number 10 B for assessment year 2021 – 22 win CIT (exemption) and follow-up details were also submitted on 29 March ... denied exemption merely on bar of limitation to submit Form no. 10, especially, when legislature had conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on authorities concerned. ii. CIT VS Hardeodas Agarwalla Trust (1992) (198 ITR 511) (Calcutta) wherein it has been held that - though s. 12A (1)(b) provides

ITO, Ward-5, Patiala vs. Sh. Kawaljeet Singh, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 448/CHANDI/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

substantial question of law involved, appeal should not be rejected on technical ground of delay. The High Court in this case condoned a delay of 314 days in filing appeal by Revenue. 5.6 In view of the above facts, it was submitted that delay of 242 days may kindly ... perused the material available on the record. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT Vs. M/s. Organon India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while condoning the delay of 314 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue has held that where the Court is required to examine as to whether

ITO, Ward-5, Patiala vs. Sh. Kawaljeet Singh, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 447/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

substantial question of law involved, appeal should not be rejected on technical ground of delay. The High Court in this case condoned a delay of 314 days in filing appeal by Revenue. 5.6 In view of the above facts, it was submitted that delay of 242 days may kindly ... perused the material available on the record. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT Vs. M/s. Organon India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while condoning the delay of 314 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue has held that where the Court is required to examine as to whether

ITO, Ward-5, Patiala vs. Sh. Kawaljeet Singh, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 446/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

substantial question of law involved, appeal should not be rejected on technical ground of delay. The High Court in this case condoned a delay of 314 days in filing appeal by Revenue. 5.6 In view of the above facts, it was submitted that delay of 242 days may kindly ... perused the material available on the record. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT Vs. M/s. Organon India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while condoning the delay of 314 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue has held that where the Court is required to examine as to whether

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Patiala vs. Sh. Mohar Singh, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 445/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

substantial question of law involved, appeal should not be rejected on technical ground of delay. The High Court in this case condoned a delay of 314 days in filing appeal by Revenue. 4.6 In view of the above facts, it was submitted that delay of 585 days may kindly ... Supra) has decided the matter against the assessee, at the same time, the same cannot be made the basis for seeking condonation of delay especially where there is a substantial delay of 585 days in filing the present appeal by the Revenue. It was further submitted that

Income Tax Officer, Patiala vs. Kulwaran Singh, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 438/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

substantial question of law involved, appeal should not be rejected on technical ground of delay. The High Court in this case condoned a delay of 314 days in filing appeal by Revenue. 4.6 In view of the above facts, it was submitted that delay of 585 days may kindly ... Supra) has decided the matter against the assessee, at the same time, the same cannot be made the basis for seeking condonation of delay especially where there is a substantial delay of 585 days in filing the present appeal by the Revenue. It was further submitted that

Income Tax Officer, Patiala vs. Gurmeet Singh Pandher, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 437/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

substantial question of law involved, appeal should not be rejected on technical ground of delay. The High Court in this case condoned a delay of 314 days in filing appeal by Revenue. 4.6 In view of the above facts, it was submitted that delay of 585 days may kindly ... Supra) has decided the matter against the assessee, at the same time, the same cannot be made the basis for seeking condonation of delay especially where there is a substantial delay of 585 days in filing the present appeal by the Revenue. It was further submitted that

United World Against Diabetes, Pune vs. Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

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

ITA 618/PUN/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.618/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2019-20 United World Against Diabetes, Vs. Exemption Ward-1(2), S.R.No.14, R.No.287, Pune Jai Jawan Nagar, Yerawada, Pune 411 006 Maharashtra Pan : Aaatu5231B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

vide impugned order confirmed the action of the CPC by holding that CIT(Exemption) had rejected the appellant application dated 12.09.2023 for condonation of delay in filing the Audit Report in Form 10B. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal

Sigmalon Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 10, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 603/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.603/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

Tribunal. We have gone through the contents of the condonation petition and we are satisfied that it is a fit case for 2 condonation of delay. Therefore, we condone the delay of 87 days in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose of the case on merits. 3. Briefly

Manik Vilas Chavan, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Nashik

Appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1215/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1208, 1209 & 1215/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" : Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Abhilasha Sanjay PawarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148

filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the appellant in limine for non-prosecution, without condoning the delay in presenting the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal ... proceedings by NFAC were initiated during the Covid-19 Pandemic period. From the perusal of the submissions of the appellant for condonation of delay, it can be safely assumed that the appellant was prevented from causing the appearance before the CIT/NFAC on account of difficulties faced by the appellant

Manik Vilas Chavan, Nasik vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Nashik

Appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1209/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1208, 1209 & 1215/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" : Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Abhilasha Sanjay PawarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148

filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the appellant in limine for non-prosecution, without condoning the delay in presenting the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal ... proceedings by NFAC were initiated during the Covid-19 Pandemic period. From the perusal of the submissions of the appellant for condonation of delay, it can be safely assumed that the appellant was prevented from causing the appearance before the CIT/NFAC on account of difficulties faced by the appellant

Manik Vilas Chavan, Nasik vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Nashik

Appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1208/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1208, 1209 & 1215/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" : Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Abhilasha Sanjay PawarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148

filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the appellant in limine for non-prosecution, without condoning the delay in presenting the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal ... proceedings by NFAC were initiated during the Covid-19 Pandemic period. From the perusal of the submissions of the appellant for condonation of delay, it can be safely assumed that the appellant was prevented from causing the appearance before the CIT/NFAC on account of difficulties faced by the appellant

Gurpalsingh Chanansingh Nagra, Akola vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Banglore

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

ITA 206/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.G. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)

there is a delay of 203 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed application–cum–affidavit for condonation of delay explaining the cause of Gurpalsingh Chanansingh Nagra ITA no.206/Mum./2023 delay in filing the present appeal. The relevant part of the Affidavit is reproduced ... Appeal (L) No.1448 of 2016 dated 13th January, 2017 wherein the Hon'ble High Court rejected the plea of the assessee of condonation of delay stating that reasons stated by the assessee is not bona- fide reason and therefore, delay cannot be condoned. Thereafter, the assessee therein preferred SLP before

Sanjay Shankarrao Jadhao, Amravati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Amravati Circle, Amravati

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 198/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 250

days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed Shri Sanjay Shankarrao Jadhao ITA no.198/Mum./2023 application for condonation of delay along with duly sworn Affidavit explaining the cause of delay. The relevant part of the Affidavit is reproduced as under:– “1. I, Jaikumar Dhurat working ... Appeal (L) No.1448 of 2016 dated 13th January, 2017 wherein the Hon'ble High Court rejected the plea of the assessee of condonation of delay stating that reasons stated by the assessee is not bona- fide reason and therefore, delay cannot be condoned. Thereafter, the assessee therein preferred SLP before

Rangasamy Balasubramaniam, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw 4(3), Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 523/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.523/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Rangasamy Balasubramaniam Ito 32/Na, Konarthottam, Non Corporate Ward 4(3), बनाम/ Oppkurushi Housing, Coimbatore. Vs. Unit Phase Ii, Pillayarpuram, Sidco Coimbatore – 641 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bllpb-3130-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144

been submitted that notices were sent on an email id which was not accessible to the assessee. Though Ld. Sr. DR opposed condonation of delay, however, accepting the plea of Ld. AR, we condone the delay. 2. The Ld. AR has pleaded for another opportunity of hearing which has been