← 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

Smita Biswas, Jalpaiguri vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 464/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 127(1)Section 143(2)

observe that there is a delay of 1075 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay vide petition dated 17.08.2022 and explained that the reasons attributable to late filing of appeal which are apparently beyond the control of the assessee ... Accordingly by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra), I am inclined to condone the delay. 5. The assessee has raised legal issue before us that the assessment was framed by ACIT, Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri instead of jurisdiction with

Rohan Care Foundation, Bangalore vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 992/BANG/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Bakiwala, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate –
Section 10BSection 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 8

filing Form 10B up to 365 days from Assessment year 2018-19 or any subsequent year and the Appellant's petition for condonation of delay is pending before the learned CIT(Exemptions). Page 3 of 6 IX The learned CIT(A) has erred in considering the fact that the appellate ... before the CIT(A) and submitted that the competent authority has transferred the application u/s 119(2)(b) to the CIT (E) for condonation of delay for filling Form 10B , which has not been disposed off till date and requested that the matter may be sent back to the file

Rajiv Kumar Nandlal Varma, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax -23(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3241/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Rajiv Kumar Nandlal Varma Income Tax-23(3) C/O.Mangaldas D Shah & Co 506, 5Th Floor, Lotus House 33-A, Vs. Room No.104, Matru Mandir New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400007 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajpv8710G

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54E

that there is no compliance. 1 (e) The learned CIT (A) has heard the appeal several times and after submitting the petition for condonation of delay. Rajiv Kumar Nandlal Varma; A.Y. 13-14 1. (f) The Appellant prays that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) be cancelled ... letter was issued to the assessee on 4th March, 2020, however, as per ld CIT (A), assessee did not file any communication for condonation of delay, he dismissed the appeal for non-compliance, non- Rajiv Kumar Nandlal Varma; A.Y. 13-14 pursuing of the appeal. Against this appellate order

Inderjit Singh Manchanda, Mumbai vs. CIT, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2963/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Hearing : 12.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 05.01.2024 O R D E R Per Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang : This is an application for condonation of delay of 282 days in filing appeal in ITA No. 2963/Mum/2023. According to the office the delay is of 451 days. 2. The brief facts ... reasons are not sufficient to establish sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 249(3) of the said Act. The law relating to condonation of delay is too well settled to be restated. The condonation can be granted only when it is shown that the appellant had sufficient cause

Vobilisetty Subbalakshmi L/R of Late Vobilisetty Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, Rajahmundry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 275/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.275/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt.Vobilisetty Subbalakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Of (Late) Vobilisetty Venkata Ward-1(1) Satyanarayana Murthy Rajahmundry D.No.2-40-14, Alcot Garden Rajahmundry [Pan : Acxpv6079M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt.A.Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Ms.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 144Section 69A

Hearing : 26.12.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 04.01.2024 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 ... Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 with the delay of 154 days. Smt.Vobilisetty Subbalakshmi, wife and Legal Representative of the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was filed on 13.02.2020 and the assessee expired on 25.08.2020. The family members

Aarambh Foundation, Indore vs. The CIT Exemption, Byhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/IND/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jan 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaarambh Foundation Cit-(Exemption) 220 Saket Nagar Bhopal Saket Nagar Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabaa 0609F Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2024

Section 12A

12AB was rejected. 2. There is a delay of 93 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. Ld.AR of the assesse has ITANo.90/Ind/2023 Aarambh Foundation submitted that due to inadvertence the assessee ... matter to the wisdom of the bench. 4. Having considered rival submissions and careful perusal of the contents of the application for condonation of delay as well as affidavit filed by the assessee we find that the assessee has explained the cause of delay as inadvertence and bonafide mistake

Aatmaram Baraskar, Bhopal vs. AO Ward 5(3), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradaatmaram Baraskar Ito- Ward 5(3) 15, Vrandavan Nagar, Bhopal Ayodhya Bypass, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agnpb 7088C Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2024

Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

assesse and therefore, the same may be condoned. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR has not raised any serious objection to the condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. 4. We have considered the rival submission as well as the reasons explained by the assessee in para

Minor Haresh Karsanbhai Patel Oral Specific Deferred Family Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(2) Now Ward- 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allowed

ITA 863/AHD/2023[1982-83]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2024AY 1982-83

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 863/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 1982-1983 Minor Haresh Karsanbhai Patel Oral Income Tax Officer, Specific Deferred Family Trust, Vs. Ward-5(2)(2), Nirma House, Ahmedabad. Near Income Tax Circle, Now Ashram Road, Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad-380009. Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad Pan: Aaath4880P

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 244A

note that there was a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee for 167 days. The assessee has filed the petition for condonation of delay dated 08/12/2023, explaining that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 13/03/2023, was not received by it. As such the assessee came ... case should not be rejected on technical ground. Asstt. Year 1982-1983 3 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR opposed to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 6. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available

Gyandeep Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru Now the ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 555/AHD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 555/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2021-2022 Gyandeep Charitable Trust, A.D.I.T, A/204, Ashutosh Apt., Vs. Cpc, B/H. St. Xaviers School, Bengaluru, Naranpura, Now Ahmedabad-380013. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Pan: Aactg0352M Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

case is 31.12.2021. If there is delay in filing Form 10B, delay can be regularised by making an application to CIT concerned for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B as prescribed by CBDT circular no 19/2020 dated 03.11.2020. In the present case the appellant has filed Form 10B belatedly ... appears that appellant trust has not made any application for the condonation of delay in filing form 10B belatedly. Therefore no condonation was granted to the appellant trust to file Form 10B till the date of processing of return of Income. During the appellate proceedings the appellant was specifically asked

M/S. the Bhavasara Kshatriya Co-Operative Society Limited, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Mysuru

ITA 981/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S Bhavasara Kshatriya Co- Operative Society Ltd., 279, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysureu-570 001. Pan – Aadat 2458 F Appelant Assessee By : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 80P

conversant with the facts of the case and competent to swear to the contents of this affidavit in connection with the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. That, being aggrieved by the order of the assessment passed u/s. 143[3] of the Act, dated 16/10/2019 ... case is hard and calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence to the party seeking relief. In granting the indulgence and condoning the delay, it must be proved beyond the shadow of negligence, whatsoever. The sufficient cause within the contemplation of the limitation provision must be a cause which

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, C-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Ad2Pro Media Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the 14 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 935/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. G. Manoj Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 195Section 201Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

days and 44 days in filing appeals for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively. The Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay. On perusal of the reasons stated in the petition for condonation of delay, we are of the view that there is reasonable cause ... latches can be attributed to the Revenue for late filing of these appeals. Hence, we condone the delay of 37 days and 44 days in filing appeals for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 3. Identical grounds are raised

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, C-1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Ad2Pro Media Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, all the 14 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 928/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. G. Manoj Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 195Section 201Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

days and 44 days in filing appeals for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively. The Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay. On perusal of the reasons stated in the petition for condonation of delay, we are of the view that there is reasonable cause ... latches can be attributed to the Revenue for late filing of these appeals. Hence, we ITA Nos.928 and 935/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 8 condone the delay of 37 days and 44 days in filing appeals for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 and proceed to dispose off the same

Konti Infrapower & Multiventures Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6 (1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3172/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalkonti Infrapower & Vs. Ito – 6(1)(2), Multiventures Pvt Ltd 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, A Wing Aayakar Bhavan, Marathon Futurex, N.M M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lowerparel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc0699J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Jayesh Chobisa.Ar Respondent By : Shi.P.D. Chougule. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Jayesh Chobisa.ARFor Respondent: Shi.P.D. Chougule. Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 119(2)(b)

Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular.No.19/2023. New Delhi the 23rd October 2023 Konti Infrapower & Multiventures Pvt Ltd, Mumbai “Sub: Condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in filing of Form No. 10-IC for Assessment Year ... Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('CBDT') by Circular No. 6/2022 of even number dated 17.03.2022 condoned the delay in filing of Form No. 10-IC as per Rule 21AE of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') for the previous year relevant

Gundarlahally Ramesh Meera, Challakere vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Challakere

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

ITA 914/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 Ms. Gundarlahally Ramesh Meera, Vs. Ito, #01, Pavagada Road, Ward – 1, Challakere – 577 522. Chitradurga. Pan : Afhpm 7158 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 250Section 69

equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal especially without issuance of any notice for hearing of Page 2 of 5 the appeal and rejecting the reasons explained ... There was a delay of 75 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay. The CIT(A), however, rejected the assessee’s application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order

Kuruhinasetty Souharda Credit Cooperative Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(1), Banglore

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

ITA 909/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Kuruhinasetty Souharda Credit Vs. Ito, Co-Operative Ltd., Ward – 5(2)(1), No.5, Sakamma Bhavana, Bengaluru. Vishveshwarapura, Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aabak 4862 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Tarun Kothari, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Tarun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, before the CCIT, etc. The learned AR submitted that assessee has filed a petition for condoning the delay in filing the return before the CCIT, Bangalore, and the same is pending adjudication. Hence, it was submitted that the mater may be restored ... that a decision be taken subsequent to the outcome of the assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing the return of income. In this context, the learned AR relied on the order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the Page 3 of 6 case of Lord

Suresh Kumar Arora, Hisar vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed as above

ITA 22/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hearing Of Appeal, Which Is Illegal. Hence Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) & Order Of The Assessing Officer, Must Be Quashed.”

For Appellant: Shri V Rajkumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 10(10)Section 10(10)(ii)Section 10(10)(iii)Section 147

being heard. Furthermore, it has been prayed that assessee’s son was suffering from severe mental illness. In these circumstances, assessee has sought condonation of delay. 4. Upon hearing both the parties and considering the cause attributed for the delay, we condone the same. 5. Brief facts of the case

ITO, WD. -4(1), Kolkata vs. Rajshree Integrated Cold Chain Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 40/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

Chain Pvt. ltd.,, AYs: 2012-13 3. There is a delay of 35 days in filing the present appeal for which petition for condonation of delay was filed on 08.03.2021. Considering the administrative reasons and Pandemic of Covid-2019 specified in the said petition, we find it appropriate to condone

Ty Spl85Z Suthamalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Ariyalur vs. CIT(A), Delhi

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

ITA 909/CHNY/2023[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, IRS, JCIT
Section 119Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

assessee filed copy of condonation petition dated 27.12.2023 filed before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai u/s.119 of the Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal which reads as under:- ‘’I wish to bring to your esteemed attention the delay incurred in filing the above mentioned Return ... section 80P of the Act for various assessment years spanning from AY 2018-2019 to AY 2022- 2023, there is provision for the condonation of delay in furnishing the return of income. This circular further instructs that such belated returns be treated as though they were furnished within

Raksha, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 611/JPR/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jan 2024AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Shri Preerna Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 80GSection 80G(5)(ii)

days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay with following prayers:- “ Rohit Gangwal, S/o Dhan Kumar Gangwal, aged 42 years presently residing at 70 Green Nagar, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur 302018, do hereby solemnly ... intentional and has occurred due to circumstances beyond my control. 7. The affidavit is being submitted in confirmation of the application seeking condonation of delay. 8. In the circumstances of the matter it is humbly prayed to the Hon’ble Bench to please condone the delay which is merely

Mohit Agarwal, Sikar, Rajasthan vs. Income Tax Officer, Sikar, Rajasthan

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

ITA 567/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

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: “Sub: Application seeking condonation of delay in Filing of appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOURS 1. This is an application ... condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur against the order dated 06.07.2023 passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), under section 250 of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Assessee in the present case filed the appeal