“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

Kushal Manoj Aggrawal, Ahmedabad vs. Commissioner Income of Tax Appeal-12, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 264/AHD/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 264/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr. DR

Section 147

behalf of the assessee. It appears from the records that the appeal is barred by limitation for 143 days. No application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, which has been first confirmed by us upon going through the entire records before us. Neither any application ... condonation of delay nor any affidavit to that effect is found to have been filed by the assessee. It is pertinent to mention that records reveal that the matter is being taken up by the Bench from 14th July, 2023 and thereafter whenever the matter was taken up in spite

Ashish Kothari, Dewas vs. The DCIT-1(1), Ujjain

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 396/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

respectively. 2. There is a delay of 76 days in filing appeal for A.Y.2015-16. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. ITANo.395 & 396/Ind/2023 Ashish Kothari 3. We have heard Ld. AR as well as Ld. DR on the condonation of delay in filing the appeal for A.Y.2015-16 ... bona fide reasons and the same may be condoned. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR has not seriously objected to the condonation of delay and left the matter to the wisdom of the Bench. 5. Having considered the rival submission and careful perusal of the reasons explained

Shri Ashish Kothari, Dewas vs. The DCIT-1(1), Ujjain

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 395/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

M. R. Sivakumar, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 963/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.963/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri M.R. Sivakumar Acit Old No.480 New No.3/480 Non-Corporate Circle-7(1) बनाम 2Nd Avenue, 4Th Sector, Chennai-34. / Vs. West Anna Nagar Extension, Chennai-600 101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Azhps-2774-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 29-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Ld.AR on the strength of condonation petition which is accompanied by affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR opposed the condonation of delay. However, considering the period of delay, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. Having heard rival submissions, our adjudication would

Bannari Amman Sugars Employees Cooperative Thrift&Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Erode

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 814/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.814/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bannari Amman Sugars Ito Employees Cooperative Thrift & Credit Ward-1(1), बनाम/ Society Ltd. Erode. Pg 48 Althukombai Vs. Komarapalayam Post, Sathyamangalam, Erode District "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaeab-2963-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ram Adhethyen (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 29-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ram Adhethyen (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)- Ld. DR

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

affidavit of the President of the assessee society. The Ld. AR has also placed on record the order passed by appropriate authority condoning the delay. The Ld. Sr. DR opposed the condonation of delay. However, keeping in mind cause of substantial justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal ... condoned by appropriate authority i.e., Ld. CCIT, Coimbatore vide ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1059670711(1) dated 12-01-2024 allowing assessee’s application u/s.119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay in filing return of income to claim deduction u/s. 80P r.w.s. 80AC(ii) of the Act. The Ld. Sr. DR could not controvert

Vijaykumar Naveen, Chennai vs. Adeit, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1397/CHNY/2023[2021-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2024AY 2021-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1397/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Tarun. G, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

delay of 344 days in filing the I.T.A No.1397/Chny/2023 :- 2 -: appeal before the Tribunal. However, the assessee has not filed any petition for condonation of delay in support of affidavit. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed. 3. Otherwise also, on merits, the issue involved

R Kamalakannan, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp. Ward 4(6), Chennai

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

ITA 1354/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1354/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Shri R. Kamalakannan, The Income Tax Officer, No.85, Avvaiyar Cross Street, Non-Corporate Ward-4(6), Metha Nagar, Chennai. Madavaram Milk Colony, Chennai-600 051. [Pan: Afmpk 7211 A] (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) (%&थ$/Respondent) अपीलाथ$ की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. S. Vidya, Ca %&थ$ की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of : 29.01.2024 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidya, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 192ASection 234B

sufficient opportunity of being heard erred in dismissing the appeal in limine stating that it was it was not a fit case for condonation of delay. 4. For that the appellant had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income ... before or during the hearing of the appeal, it is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to a) Condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to hear the appeal

Global Wool Alliance Private Limited, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Kolkata

ITA 2222/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan

Section 127Section 143(3)

file a fresh appeal before the appropriate Bench having jurisdiction over the 2.1. ITA No. 2222/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) assessee and condoning the delay caused on this account. 5. Considering the facts on record, we find it proper to dismiss the present appeal before us. At the same time ... file a fresh appeal, if so desired, before the appropriate Bench of ITAT having jurisdiction over the assessee along with the prayer for condonation of delay which had arisen on account of improper filing of present appeal by the assessee. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case

Laxmi Babu Debnath, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Pune

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE

ITA 1443/PUN/2023[A.Y.2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jan 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1443/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Laxmi Babu Debnath Level-3, Riverside Business Bay, Wellesley Road, Nr. Rto, Pune Pan : Acypd2630F . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Ms Sonal Sonkavde

Section 144Section 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)

liabilities in the extent appeal have not been effectively dealt with on evidences & merits, therefore in all the fairness, without commenting on condonation of delay & on merits thereof, we deem it fit to remand the case back to the file of the Ld. NFAC for de-novo adjudication on admission ... appeal, condonation of delay, admission of additional evidence u/r 46A and on merits of the case and pass speaking order in the manner subscribed by sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act, which mandates it to state points for its determination, decision thereon and reason for such decision

Indovation Renewables Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 11/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Indovation Renewables Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward 16(3), Plot No.16, 1St Floor, Srila Hyderabad. Realty Layout, Madinaguda, Miyapur, Serilingampally Mandal, Telangana. Pan : Aabcm3678G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate, Appeared For Shri Sk. Gupta, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate, appeared for Shri Sk. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Sr.A.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37

Before us, ld.AR submitted that though the assessee explained the reasons for delay before the ld.CIT(A), the ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the appeal and thereby dismissed the appeal of assessee. The contents of the delay application filed before the ld.CIT(A) reads as under ... apply. He further submitted that assessee has a good case on merit and therefore, the merit should not be pitted against the non-condonation of delay by the ld.CIT(A). 7. Per contra, the ld.DR has not raised any objection for remanding the matter back to the file of lower

Neyveli Educational Trust, Panruti vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-2, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as unadmitted for defects

ITA 925/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.925/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S.Neyveli Educational Trust, The Income Tax Officer- 1, Kellakollai, (Exemptions), Kumbakonam Main Road, Ward-2, Marungur Post, Chennai. Panruti-607 103. [Pan: Aaatn 8515 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 11Section 143(3)

filing of the appeal. The Registry has noticed 307 days delay in filing of the appeal. The assessee neither filed any petition for condonation of delay nor explained the reasons. The second defective is incorrect particulars in Form No.36 filed by the assessee. On one hand, it was stated that

M/S. Itc Employees Housing Co-Operative Society Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1033/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Itc Employees Housing Co-Operative Vs. Ito, Society Ltd., Ward – 1(2)(4), #252, 1St Floor 4Th Cross, Bengaluru. Banaswadi Main Road, Subbarayanapalya, Bengaluru – 560 033. Pan : Aaaa 0532 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan & Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocates Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .01.2024

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan and Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 63(16)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Assessment Year is 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 273 days in filing this appeal. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by affidavit of secretary of assessee society stating therein the reasons for late filing of this appeal. We have perused the reasons stated ... reasonable cause and no latches can be attributed to the assessee Page 2 of 5 for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay of 273 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 3. The solitary issue that is raised

Lupin Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1921/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

notice that the Ld CIT(A) has rejected the above said claim on the reasoning that he does not have power to condone the delay occurred in payment of advance tax. We also agree with the view so expressed by Ld CIT(A). We are also of the view that ... condonation of delay in payment of advance tax will not fall under the scope of the powers of Tribunal also, i.e., it is a matter to be taken up with CBDT. Accordingly, we reject this ground of the assessee. 34. We shall now take up the appeal filed

Rabdi Vibhag Progressive Kelavni Mandal, Valsad vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 797/AHD/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier;" 6.2 Reading of the above sub-section makes it clear that there is no provision to condone the delay in Registration of the Trust. However, the CBDT has extended the above time limits by invoking section 119 of the Act by issuing circular ... order while rejecting the registration u/s. 80G of the Act to the assessee on the sole ground that he has no power to condone the delay of belated filing of Form no. 10AB u/s. 80G(5) of the Act. 6.3 Reading of the above circular makes it clear that

Amikrupa Education Trust, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 581/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Final Appeal. Total Tax Effect (See Note Below) Rs. 40,90,878/-

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

materials available on record. There is a delay of 35 days in filing the present appeal for which the assessee has filed the condonation of delay application stating therein the reason for delay. The reason for delay appears to be genuine, hence delay in filing present appeal is condoned

Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 487/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2013-14 Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Ltd. V. Tax Nirma House Circle-3(1)(1) Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Near Income Tax Circle Gujarat Ahmedabad-380 009 Gujarat Pan: Aaacn 5353 L अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri Hemanshu Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2024 & 23.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Coram: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Directed Against The Appellate Order Dated 19/05/2022 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Cit(A)” In Short] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Assessment Year 2013-14 (Din & Order No.Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043081956(1)), The Appellate Proceedings Have Arisen Before Ld.Cit(A) From Rectification Order Dated 16/02/2022 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer(Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 154 Of The 1961 Act (Din & Order Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. V. Dcit Ay 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 250Section 253(6)(c)Section 253(6)(d)

order is stated to be on 16-02-2022. There is a delay of 11days in filing the appeal. Assessee has filed condonation of delay stating that there was some clerical mistake. Condonation is hereby allowed. Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT AY 2013-14 5 2. Hearing notice ... time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act. The ld. Counsel for the assesse submitted that the assesse has duly filed condonation of delay application, praying for condonation of delay. It was submitted that the assessee has filed an application before Ld.CIT(A) for withdrawal/dismissal of its appeal

Tiki Tar Industries Baroda Ltd, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 166/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2014-15 Tiki Tar Industries Baroda Ltd. Pr.Cit-2 8Th Floor, Neptune Tower Vs Vadodara. Baroda Productivity Council Alkapuri, Vadodara Pan : Aadct 8382 Q

For Appellant: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, CIT-DR

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

taken and the appeal may please be admitted. Justice should not be denied on account of procedural lapses. We therefore request to condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same.” 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended that these being sufficient cause for the impugned delay ... justice the same be condoned. He relied on various case laws in this regard. 4. The ld.DR vehemently opposed the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee stating that there was inordinate delay of 262 days and no sufficient cause was adduced by the assessee for the delay

Cheyyar Virutcham Educational Trust, Thiruvannamalai, Tamilnadu vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam Chennai

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

ITA 327/CHNY/2023[---]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.327/Chny/2023 Cheyyar Virutcham Educational Trust, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 73, Arani Koot Road, Cheyyar, Income Tax (H.Qrs) Thiruvannamalai, (Exemptions), Tamil Nadu 604 407. Chennai. [Pan:Aabtc8538N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(2)Section 154

delay of 283 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for 2 I.T.A. No. 327/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 ... that there was 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

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3375/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

also. Accordingly, we allowed the ground raised by the assessee i.e. ground no.1 in favour of the assessee. Revenue's Appeal Condonation of delay 19. There is a delay of 120 days in filing all the appeals by the Revenue. The ld. DR in this regard filed a letter requesting ... condonation of delay stating that the concerned AO was not in good health and therefore, could not carry out his duty fully which resulted in the delay in filing the appeal. The ld. DR accordingly prayed that there is reasonable cause for the delay which needs to be condoned. HDFC

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3374/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)