← 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

Shree Channamaleshwara Credit C-Operative Society Ltd., Kalaburagi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Gulbarga

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

ITA 203/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Ms.Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that the assessee has filed a delay condonation application before the relevant authority for condonation of delay in filing the return of income. It was submitted that the matter may be restored to the A.O., so t hat a decision ... taken subsequent to the outcome of the assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing the return of income. In this context, the learned AR relied on the order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kuruhinasetty Souharda 3 Shree Channamaleshwara Co-op Society

Pradipkumar Harakchand Doshi, Mumbai vs. The ITO, Ward-19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2229/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepradipkumar Harakchand Doshi V. Income Tax Officer – 19(2)(5) 94/100, 2Nd Floor Matru Mandir, Grant Road 2Nd Pathan Street Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aahpd4722B (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Assessee Represented By : Department Represented By : Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 250

filed by the assessee with a delay of 174 days and assessee also filed an affidavit in this regard and prayed for condonation of delay. Assessee filed an affidavit dated 19.06.2023 and submitted as under: - “1. That I am a proprietor of a concern in the name of M/s. Navjyoti ... have downloaded the appellate order. I was advised by tax consultant to file an appeal before the second appellate authority with request to condone the delay. Since the order u/s.250 came to my knowledge recently. I could not present the appeal within 60 days from the date of service

Anoopkumar Devidas Raimalani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Cir-18(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1653/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(2)

filed by the assessee with a delay of 119 days and assessee also filed an affidavit in this regard and prayed for condonation of delay. Assessee filed an affidavit dated 03.10.2023 and submitted as under: - "LL The Applicant had filed his returns on 29.09.2014 declaring his total income at Rs.21 ... Applicant or tax consultant, but due to the circumstances beyond the control of the Applicant. Hence, Your Honours may be pleased to condone the delay caused due to ‘sufficient cause’ in filing the present appeal. 7. The Applicant submits that it has co-operated with the Department in the completion

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Eicher Motors Limited, Delhi

ITA 3721/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 35

same has expired, the assessee should have availed the remedy u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act by filing an application for condonation of delay before the CBDT. Submission It is, at the outset, pertinent to point out that the said issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee

Eicher Motors Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 7(1) New Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 3525/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 35

same has expired, the assessee should have availed the remedy u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act by filing an application for condonation of delay before the CBDT. Submission It is, at the outset, pertinent to point out that the said issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee

Chhavi Bansal, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Faridabad

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2609/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2609/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Chhavi Bansal, Ito, 70/N, Raghubir Nagar Colony, Vs. Ward-1(2), Ballabhgarh, Faridabad, Faridabad. Ballabgarh, Haryana. Pan No. Ajlpb8288R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144Section 250Section 271A

Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay and ignoring the affidavit filed by the assessee. Ld. Counsel submits that the submissions of the assesseedated 26.06.2023 were not considered by the Ld.CIT(A) while disposing ... Paper Book). The Assessee filed appeals against assessment order as well as against penalty order 'on 02-06-2022 along with application for condonation of delay, as soon as she downloaded assessment and penalty orders from the portal. In response to the notice u/s 250 dated 19-06-2023 issued

Shashvat Paediatric Care Foundation, Nagpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Pune

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 1217/PUN/2023[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Mar 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1217/Pun/2023 Shashvat Paediatric Care Foundation 51, Narkesari Layout, Jayprakash Nagar, Khamla Rd., Nagpur-440225 Pan: Abcts7980G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Sachin Joshi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajay Kumar Kesari [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 119Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

CBDT Circular 08/2022 dt. 30/09/2022. Thus said application of the appellant was barred by limitation and in absence of statutory provision empowering condonation of delay the application deserved rejection in the light of decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in ‘All Angels Educational Society Vs CCIT’ [WP/4969/2014 ... appellant was not entitled to the extended time period in terms of circular 08/2023 dt. 24/05/2023 and (iii) absence of explicit provision/power to condone the delay in filing application for regular/final registration. 7. There is no dispute over (i) and (iii) reasoning of founded

Baji Shaik, Nuzvid vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 31/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.31/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Baji Shaik Vs. Income Tax Officer 11/200-1 Near Fish Market Ward-3(1) Nuzvid, Eluru Vijayawada [Pan : Cjgps5389M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Hearing : 05.03.2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 14.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member : Condonation of Delay : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi ... Tribunal. The assessee submitted that the reason for delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. He, therefore, prayed to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing, which would otherwise cause great hardship and insufferable injustice to the assessee. 2. In the instant case, the order

Kompella Rama Subrahmanya Sarma, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 22/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kompella Rama Subrahmanya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sarma, Ward-2, Kakinada. Kakinada. Pan: Bqzpk 4682 G (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

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

claim, the assessee also produced the medical certificate before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. However, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC did not condone the delay by holding that the reasons advanced by the assessee are not sufficient or good reason for condoning the inordinate delay of 84 days ... NFAC relied on various decisions while denying the assessee’s explanations for condonation of delay. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee as in-limine. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising

Sridhar Yarlagadda, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 311/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.311/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sridhar Yarlagadda, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(2), Pan: Abdpy4072 G Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

Further, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC observed that the reasons explained by the assessee do not constitute ‘sufficient cause’ and therefore did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in 4 appeal before the Tribunal ... raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Your appellant submits that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal for the reasons stated therein, ought to have admitted the appeal and disposed off on merits. 2. Your Appellant submits that the entire

The Chinaogirala Pacs Ltd, Chinaogirala Village vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Gudivada

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 296/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.296/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) The Chinaogirala Pacs Ltd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chinaogirala Village, Ward-1, Vuyyuru Mandal, Gudivada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-521301. Andha Pradesh-521245. Pan: Aacat 8188 M (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

NFAC with a delay of 93 days. On appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC the assessee filed affidavit seeking condonation of delay and explained the reasons that prevented the assessee to file the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit. On perusal of the submissions made by the assessee with ... respect to condonation of delay, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC did not convince with the reasons advanced by the assessee and observed that since the assessee failed to furnish any plausible explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, the assessee’s case is not a fit case for condonation

Amma Vayovrudha Sevasada Nam, Kesarapalli vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 241/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.241/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Amma Vayovrudha Sevasada Vs. Income Tax Officer Nam, Kesarapalli. (Exemptions), Pan: Aaata 4192 R Rajahmundry. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M. Madhusudan, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 14/03/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri M. Madhusudan, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 246ASection 5

both in law and also on facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay about 1797 days in filing the appeal U/s. 246A of the Act relying upon decisions may have no relevance, taking cognizance of the fact ... allowed.” 3. At the outset, it was the submission of the Ld. Authorized Representative [AR] that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC did not condone the delay of 1797 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC even though the reason for the delay was explained

Sharda Ferro Works(P)Ltd, Howrah vs. DCIT, Asansol

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

facts of the case.” 3. There is a delay of 1023 days in filing the present appeal for which petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. Impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is dated 23.09.2020. Ld. Counsel referred to point no. 11 in Form ... through teething phase. Hence, it requires linient and pragmatic approach to handle certain lapses which are unintended. Thus, taking the circumstances holistically, we condone the delay of 1023 days in filing the present appeal. 4. Assessee has submitted an application dated 09.01.2024 raising an additional ground on a legal issue

Sindhu Seva Mandal Dharmarth Trust, Ujjain vs. CIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 486/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore14 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Sindhu Sewa Mandal Cit(Exemption ) Dharmarth Trust, Bhopal 2, Ramkrishna Colony, बनाम/Vs. Dewas Road, Ujjain. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaats8149J Assessee By Shri Rajendra Sodani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14.03.2024

Section 119(2)(b)Section 253(1)

Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Bhopal u/s 119(2)(b) of Income-tax Act, 1961 whereby and whereunder the assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10 for assessment year 2017-18 had been rejected, the assessee has filed this appeal before us on the grounds

Apex Educational and Charitable Trust, Gulbarga vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Bangalore

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

ITA 91/BANG/2024[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2024

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

For Appellant: Ms.Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

There is a delay of 215 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit of the Secretary of the assessee-trust, stating therein that the Auditor of the assessee, who was supposed to attend the office ... view that there is reasonable cause for belated filing of these appeals, and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay of 215 days in filing these appeals and proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 4. At the very outset, we noticed that

Apex Educational and Charitable Trust, Gulbarga vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bangalore

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

ITA 90/BANG/2024[N. A ]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2024

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

For Appellant: Ms.Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

There is a delay of 215 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit of the Secretary of the assessee-trust, stating therein that the Auditor of the assessee, who was supposed to attend the office ... view that there is reasonable cause for belated filing of these appeals, and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay of 215 days in filing these appeals and proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 4. At the very outset, we noticed that

Amit Kumar Harish Kumar Mukhi, Indore vs. ITO It 3 (2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3378/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh, Amit Kumar Harish Vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2)(1) Kumar, Mukhi 61-A, 1629, 16Th Floor, Air Mittal Tower, Nariman India Building Nariman Point, C/O. Shyam Bhatia Point, Mumbai – 400021 & Co. C.A. 326, Prem Trade Centre Maharani Road, Indore (M.P) Madhya Predesh – 452001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Bpxpm9100G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Pankaj MograFor Respondent: Anil Sant
Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

justified in dismissing the appeal merely for the reason that the appeal was filed late marginally by period of 40 days. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing this appeal by 40 days before the ld. CIT(A) after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ... Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji, 1987 taxman.com 1072 wherein held that sufficient cause for the purpose of condonation of delay should be interpreted with the view to do even-handed justice on merit in preference to scuttle a decision on merit. Therefore, after condoning the delay in filing this

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Awas Developers, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 368/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 368/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, M/S Awas Developers, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. “Agam Buglows” Ahmedabad. Opp. Subhash Society, Sanand-Kalol Road, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 184Section 40ASection 68

covid-19 period, therefore, the same should be condoned. On the other hand, the Ld. AR did not raise any objection on the condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue in pursuance to the judgment ... with effect from 15-3-2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. 3.1 In view of the above, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 4. The first issue raised by the Revenue

New Infrastructure Private Limited, Borivali(West) vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre

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

ITA 3859/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenew Infrastructure Private Limited V. Acit- 13(1)(1) 23, B, Ganjawala Apartment 218, 2Nd Floor Svp Road, Borivali (W) Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai- 400092 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaccn1678G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha Department Represented By :

Section 143Section 148Section 234Section 271Section 68

will be filed at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 35 days in filing the appeal before First Appellate Authority and further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) and Assessing Officer had passed exparte ... further observe from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that the appeal was dismissed on technical ground by rejecting the application for condonation of delay observing as under: - “3.1 The request for condonation of delay is duly considered. It is seen that during the assessment also, the assessee

Lalita Troy Caeiro, Tapovan Chs Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

ITA 3692/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

above grounds of appeal. 2. At the outset, appeal of the assessee is time barred by 146 days. In the petition for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit of the assessee, it has been stated that assessee was not aware of any mails received from CIT (A) office as the same ... assessee was not aware of any such order being passed and sent through mail. Accordingly, the appeal of condonation of delay of 146 days is condoned. 3. The brief facts qua the issue raised is that assessee is an individual who had filed its return of income on 14/09/2011 declaring