← 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

Girirajiji Raghunandan Shiksha Prasar and Vikas Samiti, Indore vs. ITO ( Exemption), Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 342/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Indore13 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Girirajji Income-Tax Officer Raghunandan Shiksha (Exemption), Prasar & Vikas Samiti, Bhopal बनाम/ 45, Vaishali Nagar, Vs. Kotra Sultanabad, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaba59632G Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2024

Section 115BSection 147Section 250

assessment year 2009-10. 2. There is a delay of 49 days in presenting this appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, which is supported by an affidavit. 3. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee as well as Ld. Departmental Representative ... condonation of delay and carefully perused the reasons for delay in filing the appeal in para 4 of the affidavit as under :- Page 1 of 5 Shri Giriraji Raghunandan Shiksha Prasar and Vikas Samiti, Bhopal Assessment year 2009-10 (4) Further, it is being highlighted that the email

Nanjappa Gounder Palanisamy, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-3(2), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1227/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1227/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik Chordia, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

delay of 71 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for 2 I.T.A. No. 1227/Chny/23 condonation of delay in the form of an affidavit mentioning the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. By referring to the above affidavit, the ld. Counsel ... prevented by reasonable cause for the delay and the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor wanton and prayed for condonation of delay and to admit the appeal for adjudication. Against the above submissions, the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. Considering the facts and circumstances

State Bank of India Staff Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 667/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

enforced and then, they contacted the counsel prepared the appeal papers and filed the same. Though the learned DR opposed the condonation of delay, we are of the considered opinion that since the assessee is a cooperative society and the office bearers change from time to time, there ... reason as to why this explanation of the assessee cannot be accepted. Recording the same, we condone the delay and proceed to hear the matter on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is registered as a co- operative society, formed by the employees

Indian Rotorcraft Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 709/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

entitled to claim the deduction of the expenditure. This is the only issue involved in this appeal. 4. In the affidavit filed to condone the delay, it is stated that as against the impugned order dated 23/03/2018, appeal had to be filed on or before 22/05/2018, but the assessee ... stand to gain by allowing the time to pass to its detriment unless under compelling circumstances. 6. Learned DR vehemently resisted the condonation of delay on the ground that the law does not help the people, who sleep over the proceedings and if this sort of delays are allowed

Srei Multiple Asset Investment Trust, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-29, Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 421/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

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 before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction ... 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”. Page 3 of 5 I.T.A. No.: 421/KOL/2023

Goldwin Fincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1255/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg&Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 147Section 148Section 250

Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The appeal is time barred by 270 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the submissions made in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 2 I.T.A. No.1255/Kol/2023 Assessment Years

Shivnandan Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 23(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2827/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

behalf of the assessee in spite of several notices. Our record shows that on 30.07.2019, the assessee was directed to file application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit as per Rules. 4. Till date the assessee has not rectified the defect. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as defective

Krushnkant Fogatbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward- 1(3)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 747/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 747/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18)

For Respondent: Shri B. P. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250

Fogatbhai Patel vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2017-18 - 2 – 2. There is four days’ delay in preferring the appeal before us. An application for condonation of delay of 4 days has been filed by the appellant, the explanation whereof has been found to be acceptable and, therefore, delay is condoned

ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Express Tradelink Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 43/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 43/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Ward -5(1), M/S. Express Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Vs 64, Bentinck Street 3Rd Floor Kolkata - 700001 [Pan: Aacce0887C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Shri Asim Panda, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata – 7, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 23/09/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 36 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. On Perusing The Same, We Are Convinced That The Revenue Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing This Appeal In Time. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate and ShriFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 250Section 68

Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 36 days in filing the present appeal by the revenue. Petition for condonation of delay is placed on record explaining the reasons. On perusing the same, we are convinced that the revenue was prevented by sufficient cause from filing this ... appeal in time. Accordingly, we condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2 I.T.A. No. 43/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Express Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances

Mgg Infra Projects Private Limited, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 728/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Monisha Chaudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 244ASection 250Section 270A

could be viewed on portal only on 23.11.2023; thus the delay in filing the appeal if any is “Bonafide”and assessee request to condone such delay if any considered.” 6. The question whether there is sufficient cause or not is primarily a question of fact to be considered taking into ... viewed on portal only on 23.11.2023 and thus the delay in filing the appeal if any is “Bonafide” and assessee request to condone such delay if any considered. 6 MGG Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 8. In the case of Smt. Shakuntla Thukral vs. Commissioner of Income- Tax (Supra

Fashion Design Council of India, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle (Exemp) 1(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine as infructuous

ITA 2786/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediafashion Design Council Of Vs. Acit India Circle (Exemp) 1(1) 209, Near Modi Flour Mill, New Delhi Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-3, New Delhi-110 020

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 37(1)Section 44A

original proceedings in accordance with law if so legally advised. It shall be open to the assessee to raise an appropriate plea for condonation of delay owing to lapse of time due to ongoing rectification proceedings before the appellate authorities. The first appellate authority shall take into account such bonafides

Ravi Kumar Verma, Meerut vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Meerut Cantt

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 2616/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

arbitrary ought to be deleted.” 2. As per office report, the appeal is barred by 43 days. The assessee has filed application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and an affidavit by the Authorized Representative is also filed. 2.1 Learned DR opposed the submissions. 2.2 For the reasons

Batra Exports, Fazilka vs. DCIT, |TDS, Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 38/CHANDI/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

That aggrieved with the decision of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi the assessee has filed this appeal before the Hon'ble Bench. CONDONATION OF DELAY: 5. That there is a delay of 1 day in filing appeal. The application for condonation of delay along with affidavit from assessee is filed before

Batra Exports, Fazilka vs. DCIT, |TDS, Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 35/CHANDI/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

That aggrieved with the decision of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi the assessee has filed this appeal before the Hon'ble Bench. CONDONATION OF DELAY: 5. That there is a delay of 1 day in filing appeal. The application for condonation of delay along with affidavit from assessee is filed before

Dreamland Place., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1135/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1135/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dreamland Place…………….……........................…...……………....Appellant 8/2, K.S. Roy Road, B.B.D. Bagh, Kol-1. [Pan: Aaifd8986E] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata…...…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhro Das, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 01, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) To Submit That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Holding That The Same Is Barred By Limitation. The Ld. Counsel In This Respect Has Submitted That There Was A Delay Of 139 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Cit(A). The Ld. Counsel Has Further Submitted That An Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed Before The Cit(A), Wherein, It Was Pleaded Before The Cit(A) That The Aforesaid Delay Was Due To Unavoidable Circumstances Which Was Beyond The Control Of The

Section 250

delay of 139 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The ld. counsel has further submitted that an application for condonation of delay has been filed before the CIT(A), wherein, it was pleaded before the CIT(A) that the aforesaid delay was due to unavoidable circumstances which

Radhe Mohan Harsh, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 45(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 & AY

ITA 710/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80C

registry has informed that both these appeals are time barred by 11 days and petition for condonation of delay has been filed and we find that the delay was on account of medical exigency faced by the Authorised Representative of the assessee. The same is a reasonable cause

Radhe Mohan Harsh, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 45(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 & AY

ITA 709/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80C

registry has informed that both these appeals are time barred by 11 days and petition for condonation of delay has been filed and we find that the delay was on account of medical exigency faced by the Authorised Representative of the assessee. The same is a reasonable cause

S.K. V Eductional Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-3, Chennai

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

ITA 1375/CHNY/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1375/Chny/2023 S.K.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 21A, Nambikkai Arudhra Street, Exemptions Ward-3, T S Krishna Nagar, Mogappair, Chennai. Chennai 600 037. [Pan:Aazts7120G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai, Dated 24.11.2022. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 309 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Detailed Petition For Condonation Of The Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit. By Referring To The Above Affidavit, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That There

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

I.T.A. No.1375/Chny/23 is reasonable cause for the delay and the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor wanton and prayed for condonation of delay and to admit the appeal for adjudication. Against the above submissions, the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. Considering the affidavit filed ... condonation of delay, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed an application on 02.05.2022 in Form No. 10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income

M/S. Ahura Welding Electrode Manufactures Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1190/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1190/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Ahura Welding Electrode Dcit Manufactures Limited Corporate Circle-1 बनाम Site No.94 & 95, Sirpi Small Industrial Coimbatore. / Vs. Estate, Kallankatturpudur, Kinathukadavu, Coimbatore-641 109. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacca-2276-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Fca)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 07-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-02-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (FCA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

could be seen that the assessee’s first appeal was filed with a delay of 23 days. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay 2 and dismissed the appeal for want of condonation of delay without going into the merits of the case. 2. The Ld. AR, submitted ... preferred a rectification application u/s 154 which would have bearing on the grievance of the assessee. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and adjudicated the appeal on merits. Accordingly, we restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication de novo on merits

Nammalvar Lingusamy, Valsaravakkam vs. CIT [Appeals]-14, Chennai

ITA 532/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.532/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nammalvar Lingusamy, Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of 9, Janaki Nagar, Solai Krishnan Street, Income Tax, Valasaravakkam, Chennai 600 087. Non Corporate Range 20, Chennai. [Pan:Acbpn0214G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J.K. Reddy, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 31.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 24 Days In Filing The Appeal & Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Support Of An Affidavit To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection. Consequently, Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause, The 2

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 24 days in filing the appeal and filed a petition for condonation of delay in support of an affidavit to which; the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, since the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, the 2 I.T.A