← 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

Bunty Manhas, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 598/JPR/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

days may kindly be condoned. 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR fairly not objected to assessee’s application for condonation of delay and prayed that Court may decide the issue as deem fit in the interest of justice. 2.3 We have heard both the parties and perused ... materials available on record. The Bench Noted that the assessee for condonation of delay of 02 days has merit and we concur with the submission of the assessee. Thus the delay of 02 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision

Dhanya Tmt Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 892/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144

outset, the appeal by the assessee is time barred by 295 days and the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay and affidavit stating that the impugned order was not communicated to the Page 2 of 4 assessee on the email-id mentioned by the assessee ... belated filing of the appeal, we are of the view that there is sufficient reason for not filing appeal within time and we condone the delay of 295 days and take up the appeal for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged

Shashank Ashok Sawant, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Delhi

ITA 4880/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआ.अ.सं.4880/मुं/2023(िन.व.2018-19) Shashank Ashok Sawant, 726/7, Vaibhav Apartment, D.S.Babrekar Marg, Gokhale Road, Dadar, Mumbai -400 037. Pan: Ayvps-0999-K ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assessing Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 19/01/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01/2024 आदेश आदेश/Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Early Of Appeal As The Department Has Attached Bank Accounts Of The Assessee Vide Order Dated 19/12/2023, Causing Financial Hardship To The Assessee. Considering The Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Sides Appeal Is Taken Up For Hearing Today Itself.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Assessment Year 2018-19. 2 3. The appeal is time barred by 49 Days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently opposed the said application and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee on the ground of limitation

Refop India Company, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 78(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 2876/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: The Cit(A) & At No Point Of Time The Assessee Had Filed Any Application For Vivad Se Vishwas

Section 143(3)Section 201

YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: There is a delay of 343 days in filing the captioned appeals. The assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay containing that the orders impugned have not been served to the Refop India Compnay vs. ACIT assessee to the registered address of the assessee ... know about the passing of the impugned order only on 13/07/2023 when the assessee perused the income tax portal. Considering the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee and for the reasons stated thereof, the delay in filing the present appeals are condoned. 2. In the above captioned

Refop India Company, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 78(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 2875/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Cit(A) & At No Point Of Time The Assessee Had Filed Any Application For Vivad Se Vishwas

Section 143(3)Section 201

YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: There is a delay of 343 days in filing the captioned appeals. The assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay containing that the orders impugned have not been served to the Refop India Compnay vs. ACIT assessee to the registered address of the assessee ... know about the passing of the impugned order only on 13/07/2023 when the assessee perused the income tax portal. Considering the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee and for the reasons stated thereof, the delay in filing the present appeals are condoned. 2. In the above captioned

Refop India Company, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 78(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 2874/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Cit(A) & At No Point Of Time The Assessee Had Filed Any Application For Vivad Se Vishwas

Section 143(3)Section 201

YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: There is a delay of 343 days in filing the captioned appeals. The assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay containing that the orders impugned have not been served to the Refop India Compnay vs. ACIT assessee to the registered address of the assessee ... know about the passing of the impugned order only on 13/07/2023 when the assessee perused the income tax portal. Considering the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee and for the reasons stated thereof, the delay in filing the present appeals are condoned. 2. In the above captioned

Ritu Duggal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-29(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1122/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 221(1)Section 250Section 5

that there is a delay of 877 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is placed on record explaining the reasons for late filing of the instant appeal. The assessee has submitted that the assessee ... filing the appeal on time as she would not have gained anything from it. Finally, the assessee cited various judicial precedents for condonation of delay in cases where sufficient cause is explained for the delay in filing of the appeal. 2.1. After perusing the petition for condonation and hearing rival

Gurusamy Aadhinarayanan, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, CPC Bengaluru, Bangaluru

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

ITA 1041/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1041/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 Gurusamy Aadhinarayanan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 25, Vignesam Layout, Gandhinagar Ii Ward 1, Pollachi. Extn., Udumalaipet, Tiruppur 642 126. [Pan:Aclpa5394G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Kumaresh, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 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 25.05.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 12 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.

For Appellant: Shri N. Kumaresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 12 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. 2 I.T.A. No.1041/Chny/23 Consequently, since the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7.1.1, Bengaluru vs. Visskan Aviation Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal preferred by revenue is dismissed

ITA 728/BANG/2023[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Visskan Aviation The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of 104, Ground Floor, Income Tax, Kirloskar Colony, Circle – 7(1)(1), Mahalakshmipuram, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 086. Pan: Aaccv2564M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT DR
Section 143(1)

sufficient enough to condone the same. On the other hand the learned department representative drew our attention to the application for condonation of delay dated 04.12.2023 where explanation has been made in support of the delay caused. He further relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court ... rival submission made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record including the application for condonation of delay dated 04.12.2023 filed by the DCIT, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. 5. We have perused the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court

M/S. Mandya Krishik Sarvodaya Trust, Mandya vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, & Tps, Mandya

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

ITA 1121/BANG/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2022-23 M/S. Mandya Krishik Sarvodaya Trust, Vs. Ito, No.Ca 04, Krishik Sparda Soudha, Ward – 1 & Tps, 1St Stage, Khb Extension, Karasavadi Road, Mandya. Mandya – 571 401. Pan : Aaatk 8975 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 10ASection 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

Accountant dated 23.09.2022, the case laws relied on, etc. The learned AR submitted that assessee has filed a petition before the PCIT for condoning the delay in filing Form 10B. It was submitted that the matter may be remanded to the AO to await the outcome of application filed ... condonation of delay in filing Form 10B. In this context, the learned AR relied on the order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Lord Venkateshwara Ladies Educational and Welfare Trust Vs. ITO (E) in ITA No. 616/Bang/2023 (order dated 01.12.2023). The relevant finding

M/S. Government Tool Room and Training Centre, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Exemption Ward-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1013/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2021-22 M/S Government Tool Room & Vs. Ito (Exemption), Training Centre, Ward - 1 1, Rajajinagar Industrial Area, Bengaluru. Rajajinagar, Bengaluru -560 044. Pan : Aaacg 8162 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250

Assessment Year is 2021-22. 2. There is a delay of 14 days in filing this appeal. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit of the Managing Director of the assessee stating therein the reasons for late filing of this appeal. We have perused ... reasonable cause and no latches can be attributed to Page 2 of 6 the assessee for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay of 14 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 3. Grounds raised read as follows: The orders

M/S.Vinca Vyapar (P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 782/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Vinca Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Room No. 10, 3Rd Floor, Mercantile 5(1), Kolkata Vs. Building, 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aadcv9812B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Anup Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

time hearing.” 3. We note that there is a delay of 149 days in filing the present appeal. A request for condonation of delay is placed on record dated 26.07.2023 by the assessee on its letter head. The reasons given for the cause of delay is that the Ld. Counsel ... such causing a delay of 149 days in filing the appeal. The reasons given by the assessee in its application for condonation of delay are general and vague in nature and in no way justified the delay caused in filing the appeal of 149 days. We also take note

D.C.I.T., CC - 2(3), Kolkata vs. Eko Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 159/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 37(1)

Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 14 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. Petition for condonation of delay is placed on record by the assessee explaining the reasons for late filing of appeal. On perusing the same, we are convinced that the assessee ... prevented by sufficient cause from filing this appeal in time. Accordingly, we condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeal for hearing. I.T.A. No. 159/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Eko Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. 3 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company running

Kailash Band, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1), Indore

ITA 346/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kailash Band, Nfac/Ito, 01,Balgara, 1(1), बनाम/ Sanwer, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Bxtpk4018B Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 17.01.2024

Section 147Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

appeal is delayed by 44 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp. Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A), while conducting first- appeal, has served notices of hearing as well

Mewa Lal Singh, Bhopal vs. ITO 2(5), Bhopal

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

ITA 330/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimewa Lal Singh Ito 2(5) Lig-06, A-Sector Sonagiri Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Angps 1966A Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2024

Section 144Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)

filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application along with affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. AR of the assesse for condonation of delay has submitted that though in the form no.36 the assessee has mistakenly given the date of communication on 17.01.2023 ITANo.330/Ind/2023 Mewa Lal Singh however ... well as notices was sent to the E-mail ID provided by the assessee however, he has not seriously objected to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Page 2 of 5 ITANo.330/Ind/2023 Mewa Lal Singh 5. Having considered the reason explained by the assesse for delay in filing

Shri Verdhman Sthanakvasi Jain Shrisangh, Kota vs. CIT (Exemptions), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 607/JPR/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jan 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)&For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 12ASection 253(3)

delay of35 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit :- “The assessee trust applied for registration u/s 12AB online ... provisions of sections 253(5), if there is sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal, Hon'ble ITAT may condone such delay. In the above legal and factual background, as the assessee trust was not aware of the order being passed, the appeal could not be filed within stipulated

Shri Sandeep Jagdishchandra Dave, Ahmedabad vs. Teh Pr. CIT -3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 176/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dipen Shukhadia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 197Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

outset, we observe that the appeal of the assessee is time- barred by 294 days. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay stating that the assessee had consulted with his consultant who was handing assessee’s audit and income tax matters on receipt of order passed under Section

Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Exemption Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 492/HYD/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.491 & 492/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Temple, Keesara Gutta Tax, Hyderabad Exemption Ward-1(4) Pan:Aaeas2164C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Srikanth, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Srikanth, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

before the specified date as contemplated u/s 10(23) of the Act has not been fulfilled and the assessee has not sought the condonation of delay for filing the audit report from the competent authority. For that purpose, the learned CIT (A) NFAC relied on the circular of the Board ... Tamalingeswara Swamy Temple of Income-tax to condone delay in filing Form 10B and the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to condone such delay as per section 119(2)(b). The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: “Considering the hardship faced by the assessee, the CBDT issued

Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Exemption Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 491/HYD/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.491 & 492/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Temple, Keesara Gutta Tax, Hyderabad Exemption Ward-1(4) Pan:Aaeas2164C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Srikanth, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Srikanth, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

before the specified date as contemplated u/s 10(23) of the Act has not been fulfilled and the assessee has not sought the condonation of delay for filing the audit report from the competent authority. For that purpose, the learned CIT (A) NFAC relied on the circular of the Board ... Tamalingeswara Swamy Temple of Income-tax to condone delay in filing Form 10B and the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to condone such delay as per section 119(2)(b). The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: “Considering the hardship faced by the assessee, the CBDT issued

Swapan Chandra Mandal, Purulia vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(3), Purulia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/KOL/2023[2016-2017]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 131/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Swapan Chandra Mandal,.......................Appellant Village & P.O. Chelyama, District- Purulia-723145 [Pan: Akepm1916H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..............................Respondent Ward-3(3), Purulia, I.T. Office Building, South Lake Road, Purulia-723101 Appearances By: Shri P.J. Bhide, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Altaf Hossain, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 11, 2024 O R D E R

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”. 6. We do not deem it necessary