← 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

Bisharpara Kodalia Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Dumdum vs. ITO, Ward-49(2), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1248/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Bisharpara Kodalia Cooperative Income Tax Officer, Ward- Credit Society Ltd. 49(2), Kolkata Vs. Nabajiban, Bisharpara, Dum Dum, West Bengal-700158. (Pan: Aaaab9104B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Indranil Banerjee, FCAFor Respondent: Shri B. K. singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 139Section 139(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

situation certainly would have been against the assessee subject to the approval by the authorities for condonation of delay in filing the return. However, before us, the issue is regarding prima facie adjustment made u/s. 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act and as discussed above, such power of making

Soundararajan Nagaraj, Chennai vs. PCIT, Madurai-1, Madurai

The appeal stand dismissed as not admitted

ITA 484/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.484/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Soundararajan Nagaraj Pcit बनाम 87, Railway Station Road, Madurai-1, / Vs. Dindigul-624 003. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeqpn-0068-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath (Ca) -Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath (CA) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50C

time, since the case was pending at my office since April, 2022. 4. The Ld. CIT-DR, on the other hand opposed condonation of delay. The Ld. CIT-DR placed on record consequential assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 on 19-09-2023. The Ld. CIT-DR drew attention ... believe that the assessee was not aware that the revisional order was not challenged before Tribunal. Having heard both sides, the issue of condonation of delay is adjudicated as under. 5. Upon perusal of Para-2 of assessment order dated 19-09-2023, it could be seen that the various

Star Valley Heights LLP, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 806/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Feb 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 250

noted that there is delay of 17 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay praying therein as under:- ‘’The humble assessee appellant applicant respectfully prays for the condonation of delay in the filling of appeal before ... information regarding income tax proceedings. The assessee shall be vigilant in future. That in these circumstances we request your honour's to kindly condone the delay and oblige.’’ To this effect, the assessee has filed an affidavit deposing the above facts. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR objected

Anshul Dewat Singhal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-34(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3427/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: MS. Vinita Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144

unintentional. Accordingly the ld AR prayed that the delay may be condones. 5. The ld DR on the other hand vehemently opposed the condonation of delay stating that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and that the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal are not bonafide ... Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication 7. On merits the ld. AR submitted that the assessee

Nitco Paints Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2912/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 234ASection 270ASection 801A(4)(iv)Section 80I

group companies Jayam Realty Management Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT (ITA No. 2216/Mum/2023 dated 13.12.2023) under similar circumstances, the co-ordinate bench has condoned the delay. Accordingly, the ld. AR prayed that the delay is caused due to the employee leaving the organization and not due to any intentional delay ... assessee. The ld. AR therefore, prayed that the delay may be condoned. 6. The ld. DR on the other hand vehemently opposed the condonation of delay. The ld. DR argued that the email Id was that of the assessee and was active. Therefore the reason that the employee

Demi Realtors, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

erroneous and illegal, and cannot be sustained in law. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limini without condoning the delay in filing the appeal, for incorrect reasons. The Id. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the reasons for the delay in proper perspective ... ought to have properly appreciated the reasons pleaded by the Appellant in the affidavit filed in support of petition for condonation of delay, and the facts emanating from the asst. order and the financials filed by the Appellant which evidenced that the Appellant did not have sufficient sources

Rasipuram Kumaarasamy Elango, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1 Hosur, Hosur

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1189/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1189/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Rasipuram Kumarasamy Elango Ito बनाम 32, Mig Housing Board Colony, Mullai Ward-1 Nagar 12Th Cross, Rayakottai Main Road, Hosur. / Vs. Hosur-635 109. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampe-1381-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P. M. Kathir (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 05-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-02-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Kathir (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144

submitted that passing of impugned appellate order came to assessee’s knowledge only when penalty proceedings were initiated. Though Ld. Sr. DR opposed condonation of delay, considering the contents of petition as well as affidavit, the bench deems it fit to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication

Dhanania Rubber Limited, Kolkata vs. Pr.C.I.T.-3, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 167/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.167/Kol/2020 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dhanania Rubber Ltd.……..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant 10, Paymental Garden Lane, Kolkata – 700015. [Pan: Aaacd9341G] Vs. Pcit-3, Kolkata……..........…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anuj Mussadi, 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 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 02, 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 20.03.2019 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The appeal is time barred by 249 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been mentioned that the order of the ld. Pr. CIT was received on 20.03.2019 and the due date ... revision order passed by the ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act, we do not find any reason at this stage to condone the delay in filing the present appeal which is nothing but an afterthought action of the assessee. If the assessee is allowed to file appeal

ITO, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Longia Engineers, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 283/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 194CSection 250Section 263Section 263(1)

interests of revenue.” 3. There is a delay of 57 days in filing the appeal. As per the revised application for condonation of delay, the order u/s 250 of the Act in appeal No.NFAC/2015-16/10146338 dated 11.01.2023 was received in the office on 27.02.2023. The ITA 283/CHD/2023 A.Y.2016-17 Page ... order was not available on the ITBA Portal, hence, there was an inadvertent delay in filing of appeal. In the revised application for condonation of delay, it . has been submitted that the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 11.01.2023 was received

Uday Autolink Private Limited, Galaxycomplex, Naroda, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Pratyakshakar Bhawan, L Colony, Ambawadi

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

ITA 935/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 935/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Uday Autolink Private Dcit बनाम/ Limited Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. F-14, Galaxy Complex, Opp. Galaxy Cinema, Naroda, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcu3260E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Parin S Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sushil Kumr Katiar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31/01/2024 O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.09.2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Rejected The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Since The Appeal Was Barred By Limitation For 25 Days. Before Us, The Application For Condonation Of Delay Was Also Filed Which Was Also Filed Before The Ld. Cit(A). Upon Perusal Of The Same, We

For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumr Katiar, Sr. DR
Section 250

rejected the appeal filed by the assessee since the appeal was barred by limitation for 25 days. Before us, the application for condonation of delay was also filed which was also filed before the Ld. CIT(A). Upon perusal of the same, we ITA No. 935/Ahd/2023 [Uday Autolink ... stood rejected only on that ground and not on merit. As we are satisfied with explanation rendered by the assessee in support of condonation of delay in preferring the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), we quash the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and set aside the issue

Ramakushna Kiritbhai Tripathi, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1023/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Bhati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aashish Rajesh Revar, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

assessee. 5. The ld. A.R. submitted that the present appeal is filed belatedly for 15 days for which the assessee has filed the condonation of delay application explaining therein that the professional earlier was handling the matter has not filed the appeal within the stipulated time of 60 days. Thus ... therefore, the delay was for genuine reason and was not deliberate. The ld. D.R. opposed the condonation of delay. The assessee has explained the delay in his filing the present appeal and it appears that the delay is not on account of the assessee’s fault

Bhogilal Bahilalbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT -1, Vadoadar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 231/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-16 Bhogilal Bhailalbhai Patel Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 475/2 Sagar Faliya Vadodara. At & Post Bhayali Vadodara 391 410. Pan : Bkkpp 3136 R

For Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 54B

outset, it was pointed out that the appeal filed by the assessee was time barred by 525 days, and an application for condonation of delay has been filed explaining the reasons for the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Briefly put, main reason 2 given by the assessee ... ld.DR opposed the maintainability of appeal before us, stating that the assessee has no sufficient and reasonable cause so as to justify the condonation of delay before us and the delay was attributable completely to laxity on the part of the assessee. 4. We have heard both the parties

Msk Project (India) Jv Ltd. Co.(Merged With Madhav Infra Project Ltd), Vadodara vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/AHD/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 Msk Project (India) Jv Ltd. Vs. (Merged With Madhav Infra Acit, Projects Ltd), Circle-4, 4, Madhav House, Near Baroda Panchratna Building, Subhanpura, Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 1157 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Iii, Baroda [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 09.08.2012 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts To Hold That No Appeal Lies Against Order Giving Effect To Findings Of Cit In Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. 2. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts Dismissing Appeal Challenging Addition Of Rs.9,90,00,052/- Whereas Supreme Court Awarding Rs. 26.34 Lakhs

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 263

delay in filing of the appeal by 2359 days. 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an application in writing seeking condonation of delay and has made oral submissions also before us regarding the same. 5. Beginning with pointing out the chronology of events leading to the filing ... gross negligence on the part of the assessee; (iii) there was no lack of bona fides of the assessee and (iv) the condonation of delay was sought on the ground of advancement of substantial justice. 9. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee with respect to the above

Vattikuti Veera Venkata Prasad, Ramachandrapuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

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

ITA 280/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.280/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Vattikuti Veera Venkata Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer Shop-03, Ramachandra Puram Ward-1 Ramachandrapuram Mandal Kakinada East Godavari [Pan : Akqpv2779M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yashwanth (staff of ShriFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Hearing : 31.01.2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2024 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 ... with the delay of 58 2 I.T.A. No.280/Viz/2023, A.Y.2015-16 Vattikuti Veera Venkata Prasad, Ramachandrapuram days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay, submitting that the appeal against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 11.07.2023 ought to have been filed on or before 10.09.2023, but the appeal could

Kiran Kumar Kammili, Visakhapatnam vs. ITO, Ward International Taxation, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 234/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 234/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Kiran Kumar Kammili, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 30-87-11, Kranthi Rh Colony, Ward International Taxation, Duvvada, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Amqpk 3056 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Kumar Pal ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri Kumar PalFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

filing the assessee’s appeal before the Tribunal. Further, the Bench has also noted that the assessee has not filed any petition seeking condonation of delay explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal. When the Bench raised this issue and sought clarification from the Ld. Authorized Representative ... pleaded for apologies from the Bench and sought for time for filing the petition for condonation of delay. Considering the Ld. AR’s plea, the Hon’ble Bench has took a lenient view and directed the assessee to file the condonation petition along with necessary documents and affidavit

Pankaj Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 1, Durgapur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2294/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Dcit, Circle-1, Pankaj Mukherjee Aaykar Bhavan, Aykar Bithi, 1/9 Debinagar, Beniachity, City Centre, Durgapur, Vs. Kolkata-713213, West Bengal West Bengal 713216 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajopm7641Q Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 40A(3)Section 68

malafide intention and therefore, the same was bonafide and genuine reasons. 03. The ld. DR on the other hands strongly opposed the condonation of delay. 04. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the appeal filed by the assessee was late

M/S Capricorn Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 682/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Ito, Wad 12(3) M/S Capricorn Infraprojects Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Pvt. Ltd. 16, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 7 Th Chowringhee Square, Vs. Floor, Kolkata-700013, Kolkata-700069 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aapcs7197C Assessee By : Shri C.M. Roy, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kanaujia, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Roy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kanaujia, DR

assessee and finally the appeal was filed with 170 days delays. 03. The ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the condonation of delay on the ground that the delay is not properly explained. 04. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find

Pairagacha Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Pairagacha vs. ITO, Hooghly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 669/KOL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Alokesh Kundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT
Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 80ASection 80ISection 80P

appeals are time barred by 14 days. In respect of AY 2018-19 the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for condonation of delay due to non-existence of board from 01.04.2022 to 01.07.2023, Members of the board were made through election process. Board was reconstituted ... situation certainly would have been against the assessee subject to the approval by the authorities for condonation of delay in filing the return. However, before us, the issue is regarding prima facie adjustment made u/s. 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act and as discussed above, such power of making

Pairagacha Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Pairagacha vs. ITO, Hooghly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 668/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Alokesh Kundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT
Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 80ASection 80ISection 80P

appeals are time barred by 14 days. In respect of AY 2018-19 the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for condonation of delay due to non-existence of board from 01.04.2022 to 01.07.2023, Members of the board were made through election process. Board was reconstituted ... situation certainly would have been against the assessee subject to the approval by the authorities for condonation of delay in filing the return. However, before us, the issue is regarding prima facie adjustment made u/s. 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act and as discussed above, such power of making

Avishi Projects LLP, Kolkata vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore.

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

ITA 1249/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 5

that there is a delay of 551 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit which reads as under:- “I, Aditya Banka son of Ram Niranjan Banka, having address at 33A J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata ... Tribunal, at Kolkata, on scrutinising the facts and circumstances in the accompanying application, may please construe facts and circumstances as "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay. The facts and circumstances elucidated in the accompanying application involves the question of "substantial justice", where gross delay of 610 days, deserves