“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

Mahesh Gurram, Visakhapatnam vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in-limine

ITA 40/VIZ/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.40/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Mahesh Gurram Vs. Income Tax Officer 39-33-100/2, Plot No.401 Ward-2(1) Opp.East Park Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ajvpg1828N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Gurram, AssesseeFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

dismissing the appeal as time barred. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, considering the affidavit filed in support of condonation of delay, the Learned Commissioner Appeals ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated the appeal on merits. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances ... informed the same to the assessee who was also present in the court for hearing. The assessee did not file any petition for condonation of delay. 6. On the other hand, the Ld.DR submitted that there was huge delay of 3 years 4 months in filing the appeal before

Star Plastics, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennaui

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

ITA 707/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms.N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

filed on 30.05.2023. This delay of 1 day was unintentional. When this was pointed out to ld. CIT-DR, he opposed condonation of delay as the cause is not reasonable. After going through the facts and reasons stated and considering the small delay of 1 day, we are inclined ... condone the delay. Hence, delay is condoned and appeal is admitted. 3. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the reopening of assessment beyond four years despite the fact that original assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act and there

Kalidas Co-Operative Credit Society Limited Kamatagi, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Bagalkot, Bagalkot

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

ITA 32/BANG/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Chougale, CAFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 68

intimated on 16.11.2023. Subsequently the appeal was filed before the Tribunal. Due to these reasons, there was delay in filing the appeal and condonation of delay was requested for. 3. After hearing both the parties, we note that there was reasonable cause in belated filing of appeal before the Tribunal ... Apex Court judgment in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471, we condone the delay. 4. The sole and substantive issue raised by the assessee is regarding addition made by the AO u/s. 68 towards cash deposited by the members during

Nidhi Garg, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 44 (7), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(2)Section 6

above discussion and considering the facts and position of the law on this issue, I find that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of appeal by the appellant and thus condonation of delay is hereby rejected". The finding is factually incorrect, legally misconceived

Samvedna Charitable Foundation, Narnaul vs. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

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

ITA 3041/DEL/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: - Samvedna Charitable Foundation Vs. Cit Exemptions Samvedna Hospital Behind D.C. Chandigarh. Residence, Mahendergarh Road, Huda Sector-1, Narnaul, Haryana 123001. Pan Aaits3399A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Uma Upadhayay, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT- DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)

hence application for registration cannot be rejected.” 3. The appeal of the assessee is late by 217 days. The assessee filed application seeking condonation of delay. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the Trustee on 25.10.2023. After considering the submission of the Ld. Representative of the parties ... hereby condone the delay. Page 2 of 4 Samvedna Charitable Foundation vs. CIT 4. Briefly stated, on receipt of application for registration, the Ld. CIT(E) issued a questionnaire electronically on 10.11.2022 to furnish documents /details online through e-proceedings on e-filing portal by 25.11.2022. This was not responded

Sampark Management Cousultancy LLP, Noida vs. Pr, CIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1879/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18 Sampark Management Vs. Pr.Cit, Noida, Consultancy Llp, Noida. A-178, Sector – 40, Noida, Uttar Pradesh- 201 301. Pan Acsfs9969E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

appellant craves leave to add/modify/alter/delete any or all Grounds of Appeal.” 3. The appeal is late by 27 days. Vide application for condonation of delay filed on 20.07.2023, it is submitted that the delay is in filing of appeal in physical form, though the assessee had e-filed appeal before ... Tribunal in time. It is urged that the delay, if any, be condoned. 3.1 After hearing the Ld. Representative of the parties, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 4. Before the Tribunal, the assessee has moved an application on 21.12.2023 for admission of following

The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Piyushbhai Bhailalbhai Hirpara, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and that of the assessee’s CO are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 553/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roywith Cross Objection No.16/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ito, Ward-7(2)(1) Vs. Shri Piyushbhai Bhailalbhai Hirpara Ahmedabad. A/24, 1055/1064, Badrinarayan Society Nr.Sub-Station B/H. Thakkarbapa Nagar Ahmedabad 382 350, Gujarat. Pan : Aclph 3966 M 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" य थ"/(Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" य थ" थ" Assessee By : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69A

filing appeal before the Tribunal. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated in writing before us that he had no objection to the condonation of delay. 3. Heard both the parties on the issue of condonation of delay. The reasons attributed by the Revenue for the impugned delay of 91 days

Ekta Trust Navimetral, Khedbrahma vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1088/AHD/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Mar 2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

outset, we observe that the appeal of the assessee is time-barred by 13 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay vide Affidavit dated 06.02.2024 wherein the assessee stated that the appeal in filing was delayed due to lack of understanding of technicalities of Income

Shree Panch Gam Gujarati Sai Suthar Darji Gnyati, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1084/AHD/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Mar 2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju & Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Rai Udyog Ltd., Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Nagpur

In the result, these twin appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 312/NAG/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 311 & 312/Nag/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rai Udyog Limited 1, Rajat Sankul, Opp. Bus Stand, Ganesh Peth, Nagpur-440018 Pan: Aaccr6008G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Hq-1 / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds), Nagpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध/ Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 21/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By These Twin Appeals The Assessee Challenged Against The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044245542(1) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1044244849(1) Both Dt. 28/07/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The National Faceless Appellate Centre [‘Nfac’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2014-15 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 154Section 194ISection 201(1)Section 24Section 246A(1)(c)Section 250Section 271C

were filed on 04/03/2021 & 18/02/2021 respectively. Ostensibly there is unsubstantial delay in instituting these appeals and were admittedly filed without accompanying petition for condonation of delay stating therein the circumstance due to which said delay was occurred/caused. 9. We however note that while dismissing these appeals in limine

M/S. Rai Udyog Ltd., Nagpur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Nagpur

In the result, these twin appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 311/NAG/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2024AY 2014-2015

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 154Section 194ISection 201(1)Section 24Section 246A(1)(c)Section 250Section 271C

Malaya Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. DCIT, Cir. 1, Durgapur

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

ITA 1444/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1444/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Malaya Mukherjee Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, B-132, Aldrin Path Vs Circle-1, Durgapur Bidhannagar Durgapur - 713212 [Pan : Alspm9084D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 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. 20/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal As Non-Admissible On The Ground That There Was Three Days Delay In Filing Of The Appeal When The Assessment Order Was Dated 14.12.2018 Which Date Was Stated In The Memo Of Appeal But In Fact, The Order Was Not Served Or Uploaded During The Office Hours On 14.12.2018 & Was Even Singed After Close Of Office Hours & Further 15Th & 16Th December Being Saturday & Sunday, There Was No Delay & The Appeal Was Filed Within Time When The Actual Date Of Service Is Taken. 2. For That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal On The Ground Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal By Only 3 Days Without Even Granting Any Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 43(6)

heard to the assessee. 2 I.T.A. No. 1444/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Malaya Mukherjee 3. For that the Ld CIT(A) should have condoned the delay since the delay if any was from the chamber of the counsel for the assessee who< prepared and uploaded the appeal. 4. For that ... should have taken a lenient view by allowing condonation of delay since it was only a delay of 3 days. 5. For that the Ld CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits holding that the difference of Rs 60,07,197/- in the closing WDV of Plant & Machinery

Stesalit Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 749/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jayant Raheja, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 250Section 32A

delay of 311 (three 2. hundred eleven) days in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing of the appeals. It is noted that the period of delay falls during ... dated 10.01.2022 by which the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 has been directed to be excluded for the purpose of limitation. Accordingly, we condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeals for hearing. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in view

Stesalit Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 748/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jayant Raheja, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 250Section 32A

Stesalit Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 747/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jayant Raheja, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 250Section 32A

M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd.(Successor to Bjn Paints India Limited Pursuant to Merger)A, Kolkata vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

ITA 380/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Berger Paints India Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of (Successor To Bjn Paints India Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Ltd. Pursuant To Merger) Vs. Kolkata. Berger House, 129, Park Street, Kolkata-700017. (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta & Shri Alok Goenka, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

grounds of appeal are not reproduced. 3. There is a delay of 119 days in filing the present appeal for which petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit is on record. The impugned order passed u/s. 263 of the Act is dated 31.03.2021 which is passed during ... purpose of limitation. Vide this order a further period of 90 days has been granted for providing the limitation from 01.03.2022. Accordingly, we condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeal for hearing. 4. The main thrust of the Ld. Counsel in the present appeal is on ground

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Asaikani Nadar Kamaraj, Rajapalayam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 1197/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1197/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & C.O. No. 54/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No. 1197/Chny/2023] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Asaikani Nadar Kamaraj, Income Tax, 7/84, Pound Street, Chokkanathaputhur, Central Circle 2, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District, Madurai. Tamil Nadu 626 121. [Pan:Aaxpk1318E] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkataraman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 31.08.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 01.11.2017 Admitting A Total

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkataraman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145Section 68

filed with a delay of 2 days in filing the CO before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasonable cause for the delay in filing the CO, against which, the ld. DR has not raised any objection. Since the assessee was prevented ... reasonable for the delay in filing the CO, we hereby condone the delay of two days in filing the CO and admit the CO for adjudication. 16. Except supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue of addition made under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. Ms Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1106/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1106/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 599, Raja Street, Corporate Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 001. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aafcd-3066-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, CA

Section 115JSection 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

hearing, we find that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 136 days, for which petition for :-2-: ITA. No: 1106/Chny/2023 condonation of delay, along with affidavit explaining reasons for filing of appeal beyond the prescribed limit has been filed. 3. The ld. DR, referring to petition filed

M/S. Tirumala Teleworld, Hubbali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Hubballi

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

ITA 209/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 44A

able to know about dismissal of first appeal. Subsequently, recognizing the need to take action, the present appeal is filed with application for condonation of delay. 5. Under the circumstances mentioned above there is a delay of 185/(1axAD) days from the date of order passed by the Commissioner

Shweta Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 33(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3528/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 250Section 54F

present appeal was filed after compiling all the papers and preparing necessary grounds of appeal. Accordingly, the assessee has prayed for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) did not raise any serious objection against the prayer for condonation ... delay in filing the present appeal. 3. We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. MST Katiji and others