“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

Khurana Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT.(OSD), Circle-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 2357/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

No.209/Ahd/2011 AYs:2007-08 CO. No.210/Ahd/2011 & Khurana Engineering Ltd. It was submitted that it was unintentional and prayer was made to condone the delay. The Revenue does not have serious objection to the condonation of delay of one day by assessee is filing its appeal with ITAT. After hearing both ... parties, we condone the delay of one day beyond the limitation as provided u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act. If justice is pitted against technicalities, the Courts will lean towards advancement of justice rather than technicalities. We order accordingly. 12. The assessee has raised following grounds

The ACIT.(OSD), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Khurana Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2352/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

The ACIT.(OSD), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Khurana Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2308/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

Apparao Mutchakarla, Vizag vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vizag

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 4/VIZ/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.04/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2007-08) Apparao Mutchakarla, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Vizag. Income Tax, Pan: Ahvpm 9813 F Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 19/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drawn our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the affidavit which is as under: “ ……….. Whereas, assessee was having nervous problem affected his lift hand and central ... reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 38 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 38 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly stated

Srinivas Balla, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 11/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.11/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Srinivas Balla, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Pan: Ahipb 8232 A Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Villuri Aparna, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 19/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Villuri Aparna, Sr. AR

Section 127Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drawn my attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the affidavit which is as under: “1 ……….. 2. The delay in filing this appeal was entire unintentional ... reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed limit with a delay of 11 days. Therefore, I hereby condone the delay of 11 days in filing the 3 appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly stated

Suryanarayana Reddy Tondapu, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

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

ITA 170/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.170/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Suryanarayana Reddy Tondapu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kakinada. Ward-1, Pan: Adppt 6393 K Kakinada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Dl Narasimha Rao, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 19/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri DL Narasimha Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 187(1)Section 197Section 250Section 4Section 69

belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drawn my attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the affidavit which is as under: “ ……….. It is further affirmed that I was confronted by ill health arising ... reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed limit with a delay of 38 days. Therefore, I hereby condone the delay of 38 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly stated

Debanjali Sengupta, Karnataka vs. ACIT, Circle 61, Kolkata

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

ITA 774/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 250

short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 29.05.2023. 2. At the outset, ld. A/R stated that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal even though sufficient cause for delay was demonstrated by the assessee, therefore, passing the impugned order is I.T.A. No.: 774/Kol/2023 Assessment ... aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after considering such prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before ld. CIT(A). 3. On the other hand, ld. D/R supported the order passed

Fathimath Soudha, Dakshina Kannada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Mangalore

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

ITA 176/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

Assessment Year is 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 18 days in filing this appeal. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit stating therein the reasons for late filing of this appeal. We have perused the reasons stated in the affidavit ... view that there is reasonable cause and no latches can be attributed to the assessee for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay of 18 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 3. The solitary issue that is raised

Mhasimata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pathsanstha Limited Nizampur, Dhule vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Dhule

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

ITA 490/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.490/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Hemant C. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 56Section 80P

condoned. I have gone through the contents of the condonation petition and I am satisfied that it is a fit case for condonation of delay. Therefore, the delay of 44 days in filing the appeal is condoned and proceed to dispose of the case on merits. 3. Briefly, the facts

Medisetty Venkata Rattaiah, Vijayawada vs. The Assistant Or Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada

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

ITA 94/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.94/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Medisetty Venkata Rattaiah, Vs. The Assistant Or Deputy Vijayawada. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pan: Abypm 1595 M Vijayawada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed an affidavit along with a petition seeking condonation of delay and the contents of the said affidavit are as under: “1 .….. 2. …… 3. …... 4. The reasons for such delay are submitted as under ... reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed limit with a delay of 15 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 15 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly stated

Kodali Suresh Babu, Labbipet vs. Income Tax Officer Ward (International Taxation), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/VIZ/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T. (It). A. No.231/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2016-17) Kodali Suresh Babu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Labbipet. Ward (International Taxation), Pan: Atwpk 8835 C Vijayawada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 18/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

assessee filed return of income dated 19/01/2021 which was considered as invalid return of income. The petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay was also rejected by the Ld. CIT (IT & TP), Hyderabad vide order dated 28/09/2021. Subsequently, the case was taken up for scrutiny by issuing notice

Mjunction Services Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 203/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ashis Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

against the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act is still pending for adjudication before the Ld. CIT(A) and the application for condonation of delay becomes infructuous being premature. 3. Ground nos. 1 and 2 relate to the Ld. CIT(A) not adjudicating the grounds of appeal raised ... shall be at liberty to file the appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, as held in para 2 (supra) the application for condonation of delay is also not adjudicated upon being infructuous/premature in nature. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed being infructuous. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee

Kuddle Life Foundation, Pondicherry vs. CIT Exemptions Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 1560/CHNY/2023[---]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

outset, it is noticed that this appeal is barred by limitation by 32 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition for condonation of delay supported with affidavit. The order of CIT(Exemption) is dated 25.09.2023 and as per Form No.36, the date of communication of order is also mentioned ... filed by assessee in Tribunal on 26.12.2023, thereby there is a delay of 32 days. The assessee contended in its petition for condonation of delay that the last date for filing of appeal before Tribunal fell on 24.11.2023 however, this could not be filed due to various complexities in understanding

Hbs Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3949/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailhbs Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of 505 Ceejay House, Dr. Income Tax- 7(1)(2) Annie Besant Road, Worli Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400018 Mumbai – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacc1641C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mandar Vaidya Respondent By : P.D. Chougule Date Of Hearing 16.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac For A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Treating The Appellant'S Appeal As 'Delayed Solely Because The Appeal, In The First Instance, Was Filed Manually & Not Electronically. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Misdirected Himself In Not Appreciating That Failure To File The Appeal Electronically, In The First Instance Is, At Best, A Procedural Defect & The Difference Between 'Manual' & 'Electronic' Is, Merely Of Form. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not, In The Given Circumstances, Justified In Declining To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal 4. The Ld. Cit(A) Fell In Error In Not Appreciating That Plurality Of Objects Was Not Precluded In The Purposes Contemplated U/S.11(2) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: P.D. Chougule

Section 11(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

between 'manual' and 'electronic' is, merely of form. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) was not, in the given circumstances, justified in declining to condone the delay in filing the appeal 4. The Ld. CIT(A) fell in error in not appreciating that plurality of objects was not precluded ... Pvt.Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT-7(1)(2) the notice of the ld. CIT(A) at column no. 15 of the form no. 35 regarding condonation of delay in filing the online appeal on the ground that circular regarding e-filing of appeal had come late and the assessee had already filed

Adani Kindergarten Education Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemptions), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 860/AHD/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar & Shri Parin ShahFor Respondent: Fr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R

Section 80Section 80G

activities, whichever is earlier. The time limits prescribed therein are mandatory and the Commissioner of Income Tax has no power to condone the delay in filing application in Form No.10AB. The CBDT on multiple occasions had extended the time limit in filing the application in Form 10AB and vide Circular ... Section 80G(5) of the Act. 5. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee firstly submitted that the ITAT has the power to condone the delay in filing of Form 10AB of the ITA Nos. 859&860/Ahd/2023 Adani Education Foundation/ Adani Kindergarten Education Foundation vs. CIT(E) Asst. Year

Adani Education Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemptions), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 859/AHD/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar & Shri Parin ShahFor Respondent: Fr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R

Section 80Section 80G

Amitkumar S. Solanki, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Godhra

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

ITA 456/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 456/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18) Amitkumar S Solanki The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 63, Narayan Green Ward - 2, Godhra Vs. Banglows, Sama Savli Road, Vadodra - 390024 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bnips7919E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Palak Pavagadhi, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 23.11.2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income For A.Y. 2017- 18 Declaring An Income Of Rs.49,44,188/-. The Return Was Processed U/S. 143(1) Of The Act On 20.03.2019 & While Processing The Return An Addition Of Rs.25,99,845/- Was Made In Respect Of Unpaid Employees’ Contribution To Epf/Esi U/S.

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

also a delay on the part of the previous AR of the assessee. The department has not raised any serious objection to the condonation of delay. Considering the explanation of the assessee, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 5. On merits, the ld. AR submitted that

The Jt. CIT(OSD) (Exemptions), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Tapti Valley Education Foundation, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 353/AHD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT DRFor Respondent: None

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

observe that there is a minor delay in filing of appeal by the Department. The department has filed application for condonation of delay, in which it was submitted before us that the minor delay of 22 days in filing of the present appeal was due to heavy workload

Howrah Mills Company Limited., Howrah vs. DCIT. C.C-1(1), Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 642/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

there is a delay of 59 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. In this regard, assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay. We after going through the same find that there is a reasonable cause behind the delay in filing the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly ... condone the delay in filing the appeal on the part of assessee. 3. At the time of hearing, no one turned up on behalf of the assessee. Although notices were issued from time to time from the registry to the assessee informing about pendency of this case. In this regard

No 779 Veeraganur Primary Agricultural Co- Operative Credit Society, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA 269/CHNY/2024 for assessment year 2021-2022 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 269/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.269/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) No.779 Veeraraganur Primary Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Ward 1(6), Society, Salem. Veeragannur Post, Gangavalli, Attur Taluk, Salem. [Pan: Aaaan 3985A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, IRS, JCIT

Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessee has submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation petition before the CBDT under section 119(2) of the Act to condone the delay in filing the return of income. It was further submission that despite having time to process the return of income under section ... outcome of the condonation petition filed before the CBDT. In view of the fact that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay before the CBDT under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, it is opined that once the delay condonation is pending before the CBDT