← 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

Fashion Zone, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Ward III(2), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 331/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 68

condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication. 4. The Ld. DR is heard who has not raised any serious objection to the condonation of delay. 5. After hearing both the parties and considering the material available on the record, we find that there was reasonable cause for delay

Bank of Baroda, Bharuch vs. The Jt. CIT (TDS), Vadodara

In the result, appeal preferred by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 8/AHD/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Bank Of Baroda The Jt. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Gnfc Complex Branch, Income Tax (Tds) Vs. Gnfc Corporate Bulding, Baroda Narmadanagar – 392015, Bharuch "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb1534F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) None अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/03/2024 O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Appellant Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Vadodara-5 (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Arising Out Of Penalty Order Dated 28.04.2016 Passed By The Jt.Cit (Tds), Baroda, Under Section 271C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appeal Is Barred By Limitation For 252 Days. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant In Spite Of The Matter Being Listed For Several Occasions & Service Of Notice By Rpad. Upon

For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 271C

perusal of the entire set of records, we also find that neither the appellant has filed any application for condonation of delay in support of the appeal filed before us late as mentioned hereinabove, thus, it appears that the assessee is also not interested to proceed with the appeal. However ... application for condonation of delay in support of late filing of the appeal not filed by the appellant for getting the appeal admitted upon such condonation of delay, in the absence of such application, we are unable to admit the appeal. The same is, therefore, rejected on the ground

Margani Govinda Raju, Kadiyapulanka vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 251/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.251/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Margani Govinda Raju, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kadiyapulanka, Ward-2(3), East Godavari Dist. Rajahmundry. Pan: Aocpm 3465 K (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 20/03/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

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 appellant suffered from severe back pain and sciatica ... reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed limit with a delay of 72 days. Therefore, I hereby condone the delay of 72 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly stated

Loyola High School, Kolkata vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 472/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal 2 Loyola High School before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation ... looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss”. 6. We do not deem it necessary

Nageena Bi, Bhopal vs. ITO - 1(1), Bhopal

ITA 405/IND/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 253(5)

appeal is delayed by 40 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp. Ld. AR drew our attention to the condonation- application/affidavit and submitted that the assessee is a housewife

Addl CIT R G 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India Ltd ( Formerly Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd. ), Mumbai

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

case may be. And adjudicated those additional grounds". The AR contended that, the Hon'ble Tribunal has decided the issue of condonation of delay in filing an additional ground. 5.5.1 It is to be noted that the delay in filing of an additional ground in this case i.e. Vertiv Energy ... NO.190/MUM/2011 M/s. Novartis India Limited case, it is 16 years. Further, the Hon'ble Tribunal has not decided the issue of condonation of delay on merit. Hence, this decision is not applicable in the Assessee's case. The facts in the assessee's case are different. The delay in filing

Ai-Jadeed Social Welfare Association, Osmanabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 111/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteal-Jadeed Social Welfare Vs Ito, Ward-Exemption, Association, At Post Pune. Hangarga, Nal, Tal. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad-413602 Pan: Aabta 3186 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nitin Rander, Ca Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/03/2024 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 28.11.2023 For A.Y.2018-19 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Cannot Be Condoned. The Appellant Prays That The Delay Be Condoned & Appeal Be Taken Up For Hearing. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao & Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Held That The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust Registered U/Sec. 12A & U/Sec. 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) & Accordingly, Eligible For Claim Of Exemption U/Sec. 11 Of The Act. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Erred In Disallowing The Claim Of Rs. 86,18,109/- Towards Application Of Income U/Sec. 11 Of The Act. 4. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Deciding The Issue On Merits & Not Allowing The Application Of Income On Objects Of The Trust U/Sec. 11 Of Rs. 86,18,109/- & Thereby Treating The Same As Income Of The Appellant. Al-Jadeed Social Welfare Association 5. Without Prejudice To Above Grounds Of Appeal, The Ld. Authorities Erred In Not Allowing The Income Of The Assessee, Being An Educational Institution Substantially Financed By State Government, Is Eligible For Exemption U/Sec. 10(23C)(Iiiab) Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Rander, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 80G

That, as evident in the order of NFAC itself, there is mention of the affidavit which was filed by the assessee requesting for condonation of delay. In the said affidavit, it has been mentioned that such delay was caused due to change of Secretary of the applicant-trust and another ... after 2 Al-Jadeed Social Welfare Association going through these affidavits and examining other documents on record shall form an opinion regarding the condonation of delay of 211 days and pass a speaking order as per law. In view thereof, we set aside the order of NFAC and remand

Vijayanand Charitable Trust, Karad vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-1(1), Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 928/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 154Section 250(6)

deserve condonation of the above delay. 3 I.T.A.No. 928/PUN./2023 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing sole issue of condonation of delay. It transpires during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) has nowhere even quantified the actual delay in filing of the assessee

Sachin Yerrawar, Bhainsa vs. ITO - Ward -1, Nirmal

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

ITA 103/HYD/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.103/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Sachin Yerrawar Vs. Income Tax Officer Bhainsa, Ward 1 Nirmal District, Nirmal Telangana. Pan: Affpy2732K (Appellant) (Respondent) /Assessee By: Shri Pradeep Raj Kuna, Ca निर्धारितीती द्वारा /Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr राजस्‍व द्वारा ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/03/2024 सुनवाई की तारीखरीख/Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 घोषणा

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Raj Kuna, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 69A

have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we allow the application for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that

The N.D.D. P and T E.C.C Society Ltd., Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore

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

ITA 611/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.611/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Nddp & Tec Society Vs. Income Tax Officer Ltd, Ward-1 Nellore. Nellore. Pan:Aactt5322J (Appellant) (Respondent) /Assessee By: Shri M. Chandra Mouleswara निर्धारितीती द्वारा Rao, C.A /Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/03/2024 सुनवाई की तारीखरीख/Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 घोषणा

For Appellant: Shri M. Chandra MouleswaraFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.AR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80P

eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax’1961. The proper recourse for the appellant would be to file a condonation of delay application before the Pr. CIT/ CIT. Hence, unless the delay is condoned, no relief can be given by the CIT(A) on this ground. The following

Vasudev Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-5(3), Kolkata.

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

ITA 723/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 144Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 263

time hearing.” 3. There is a delay of 216 days for which assessee has placed on record an affidavit along with petition for condonation of delay. On an earlier occasion vide order sheet dated 13.12.2023 it was observed as under: “The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee ... perusal of the record, it carne to our notice that appeal is time barred by 216 days and there is no application for condonation of delay. Therefore, this appeal is released for fresh hearing. The objection regarding time barred was duly intimated to the assessee when acknowledgment for filing

Statebank of India Officers Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-12(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1127/CHNY/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1127/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 State Bank Of India Officers Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Thrift & Credit V. Non Corporate Ward -12(1), Society Limited, Chennai. 34/9, S.C.C. Anthoni Pillai Bhavan, Iii Floor, Second Line Beach, Parrys, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aaias-1191-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)

1127/Chny/2023 whereas the appellant has filed its return of income on 21.12.2022. The appellant has filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing return before the CBDT on 11.01.2023. The Assessing Officer, CPC, processed return of income filed by the assessee u/s. 143(1) of the Act and denied ... Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A), on 16.03.2023 and argued that, the appellant has filed a petition before the CBDT for condonation of delay. The petition filed by the appellant before the CBDT has been assigned to the PCIT to decide the issue of condonation of delay for filing

Sri. Habeeb Shaik, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in the above terms

ITA 148/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri.Shivkumar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sandeep Kumar H.S., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 270Section 270A

Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” hereinafter) and order passed u/s.270 of the Act, for the sole reason that the FAA did not condone the delay of 450 days for filing the appeal. In this regard, the learned AR submitted that the Tax Practitioner Sri.T.V.S.Bhat, M/s.T.V.S. Bhat ... before the CIT(A) and the affidavit filed. Therefore, this requires examination. The learned DR further submitted that as regards the denial of condonation of delay, the CIT(A) has noted in para 6.10 is his order, which reads as follows:- “6.10 In order words, where there is sufficient cause

Lalitkumar Mohanlalji Sakhla, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 31 (2), Mumbai

ITA 3848/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya, D.R

appeal was neither willful nor international. 2. However, on the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue opposed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the late filing of appeals in this case is apparently malafide due to callous attitude of the assessee and prayed ... senior citizen who has categorically stated that he could not notice the order sent through email, we find sufficient cause to condone the delay particularly in the facts and circumstances of the case that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order for want of prosecution by the assessee

Nishithkumar Dineshkumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax NFAC, New Delhi

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

ITA 1076/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Ms. Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nitin M. Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

before the authorities below. Therefore, he prays for I.T.A No. 1076/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No. 3 Nishitkumar Dineshkumar Shah vs. CIT NFAC condonation of delay in preferring the appeal since the same could not be filed within time. Such prayer made by the ld. A.R. has not been controverted

Ranisati Hosiery (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1278/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1278/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranisati Hosiery (P) Ltd…….….…………............…...……………....Appellant Siddha Weston, Room No.126, 9, Weston Street, Kolkata – 700013. [Pan: Aafcr2959B] Vs. Pcit-4, Kolkata…………..….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar & Giridhar Dhelia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 31, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 18, 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 12.03.2019 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. As Per The Note Of The Registry, The Appeal Is Time Barred By 1722 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed Which Is Further Supported With The Affidavit Of Shri Bhupendra Bansal, Director Of The Assessee Company. It Has Been Explained That The Impugned Order Dated 12.03.2019. That The Copy Of The Order Was Not Served Upon The Assessee. That The Assessee Came To Know About The Passing Of The Impugned Order Only After The Receipt Of The Subsequent Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 263 Of The Act. The Assessee

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

note of the Registry, the appeal is time barred by 1722 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed which is further supported with the affidavit of Shri Bhupendra Bansal, director of the assessee company. It has been explained that the impugned order dated 12.03.2019. That

Seema Sinha, Indore vs. ITO-4(4), Bhopal

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

ITA 499/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Indore18 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Seema Sinha Ito-3(4) C-508, Shehnai Residency Bhopal Vs. A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Alups4142A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2024

Section 147Section 148

appeal: “1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal and consequently, also erred in not admitting such appeal without properly appreciating the facts of the case. ITANo.499/Ind/2023 Seema Sinha ... ground for delay Page 2 of 4 ITANo.499/Ind/2023 Seema Sinha however, there is no application on behalf of the assesse for condonation of delay nor any other details or evidence was filed by the assessee in support of cause of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore

Sanjay Kumar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 286/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Sanjay Kumar, Vs. Ito, No.427, Banaswadi Main Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Subhaiahnapalya, K. R. Puram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 030. Pan : Awaps 5721 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel. Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 250

Assessment Year is 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 9 days in filing this appeal. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by affidavit stating therein the reasons for late filing of this appeal. We have perused the reasons stated in the affidavit for belated ... 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 9 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 3. At the very outset, we notice that

T P Ostwal & Associates LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT-16(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, addition of INR 67,58,815/- made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. Accordingly, Ground No. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 are allowed while Ground No

ITA 3746/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Atul T. SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 40

Departmental Representative supported the order 7. passed by CIT(A) and submitted that the Appellant had not filed any application for condonation of delay before the CIT(A), therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal as being barred by limitation. We have considered the rival submissions ... days from the aforesaid date. According to the Appellant, there was no delay in filing the appeal and therefore, no application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal was filed by the Appellant. 7 It is admitted position that the CIT(A) had called for a remand report

Shri Gangaparameshwari Uraban Co Op Credit Society Ltd Mudalgi, Mudalgi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gokak

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

ITA 267/BANG/2024[201819]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri.Sateesh Nadagouda, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

that the assessee has filed a delay condonation 3 Shri Gangaparameshwari Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. application before the relevant authority for condonation of delay in filing the return of income. It was submitted t hat the matter may be remanded to the A.O., to take a decision after ... allowed deduction under section 80P of the Act. However, assessee has filed application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing the return of income and the same is pending consideration by the PCIT. In this context, learned AR had relied on the CBDT