“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

Cadmatic Oy, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Tax), Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 540/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 195

assessee from the supply of software and services to the Indian entities. The learned A.R., by referring to the application seeking condonation of delay filed along with the present appeal explained the circumstances in which the present appeal was filed after the delay of 363 days. Subsequently, vide order sheet ... with the directions issued by the learned DRP, the A.O. passed the impugned final assessment order dated 27/12/2021. 15. In its application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal, the assessee after placing on record the aforesaid facts submitted that it has filed the appeal before the learned

Subhas Shibukumar Bose, Thane vs. ITO, Ward-28(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3262/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharysubhas Shibukumar Bose Vs. Ito, Ward-28(3)(1) Raj Villa, Room No. 2, Vashi Railway Station Sector 18A, Plot No. 123, Building, Vashi, Nerul Node-Iii, Navi Mumbai Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra Mumbai – 400706 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Ahtpb7474M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Rajesh Shah Respondent By : Lieder Panicker Date Of Hearing 27.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2023

For Appellant: Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Lieder Panicker

Section 147oSection 148Section 250

There was a delay of 114 days in filing this appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed application dated 12.09.2023 for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. The assessee submitted that e-mail id of the tax consultant of the assessee was provided for the purpose of communication ... Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katigir & Ors. Civil Appeal No.460 of 1987 dated 19.12.1987 on the proposition that sufficient cause for the purpose of condonation of delay should be interpreted with a view to do even handed justice on merit in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits

Shri. Babulal Mishrimalji Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(1)(2), Mumbai, Matru Mandir

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2735/MUM/2023[AY2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja ChhawachhariaFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath B. Pasale

Section 250

appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 1821 days. Along with the appeals, the assessee has also filed his affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeals. For reference, the submission made in the affidavit is reproduced as under:- Shri Babulal Mishrimal Mehta ITA no.2733/Mum./2023 ... no.2735/Mum./2023 “Subject: Condonation of delay in submission of appeal before your honor My affidavit detailing the aforesaid facts and these may kindly be placed before the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal for condonation of the delay in submission of the appeal. We pray for condoning the delay as the delay

Shri. Babulal Mishrimal Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2733/MUM/2023[AY2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja ChhawachhariaFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath B. Pasale

Section 250

Alpha Heavy Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 15(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 2615/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Alpha Heavy Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Ito-15(1)(1), 42, Zarna Apartments Nahur Room No. 456, 4Th Floor, Village Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mulund West-400080 Maharishi Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aajca 1768 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. A.S. Sant, Sr. DR

Section 250

accordingly prayed the statutory limitation period of 60 days and accordingly pra the statutory limitation period of 60 days and accordingly pra for condonation of delay of 75 days in filing the appeal. for condonation of delay of 75 days in filing the appeal. for condonation of delay ... case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay of Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay of 75 75 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication

Kunderu Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Kunderu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.219/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) The Kunderu Primary Agricultural Co- Vs. Income Tax Officer Operative Credit Society Ltd. Ward-2(4) D.No.3068, Kunderu, Vijayawada Kankipadu Mandal Krishna Dist [Pan : Aabat0643G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Ms.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)(b)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

Hearing : 28.12.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.12.2023 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), Delhi ... I.T.A. No.219/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 The Kunderu Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Kunderu of 44 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay, submitting that the authorized signatory of the assessee society suffered from severe back pain and was advised bed rest by the doctor for at least

Thakorbhai Dahyabhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 722/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.722/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Hearing) Thakorbhai Dahyabhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 8 Navo Mohallo, Gam Sarsana, Ward -2(3)(4), Post – Khajod, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Athpp2883N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2023

Section 143(3)

filed by the assessee for AY.2010-11 is barred by limitation by ten (10) days. The assessee moved a petition, requesting the bench to condone the delay. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and having regard to the reasons given in the petition for condonation of delay ... condone the delay ITA.722/SRT/2023/AY.2010-11 Thakorbhai Dahyabhai Patel of ten (10) days and admit the appeal of assessee for adjudication on merit. 3. At the outset itself, Learned Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that assessee could not represent his case before

Shilpaben Nileshbhai Gami, Bardoli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1)(5), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 372/SRT/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.372/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Shilpaben Nieshbhai Gami, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Omkarnagar Society, Ward 3(1)(5), Near Jalaram Temple, Bardoli- Surat 394601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp 8678 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 31/10/2023 सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2023

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

barred by limitation by 2208 days ( more than 6 years) . The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition for condonation of delay are reproduced below: “I, Shilpaben Nileshbhai Gami, aged 48 years, presently residing at 9-10, Omkar Nagar Society ... knowledge, information and belief and I believe the same to be true.” 4. Based on the contents of the petition for condonation of delay, as noted above, the Ld. Counsel contended that assessee has explained the sufficient reasons, therefore the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned

Kamlesh Jethmal Shah, Silvassa vs. Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Ward, Silvassa

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

ITA 369/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.369/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) Kamlesh Jethmal Shah, Vs. The Ito, Plot No.P-9/1, Everest Garden, Silvassa Ward, Opp. Indian Bank, Naroli Bank, Silvassa Naroli Road, Silvassa – 396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeqps7259R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 07/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2023

Section 144

barred by limitation by seven hundred thirty one (731) days. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted a petition for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit and stated that assessee has explained the sufficient cause/reasons in the affidavit for condonation ITA.369/SRT/2023/AY.2009-10 Kamlesh Jethmal Shah of delay and therefore delay should ... condoned. The contents of the petition for condonation of delay are reproduced below: “My mother was on bad rest and not able to walk and we had to go frequently for her medical checkup at various hospitals on regular basis and further, I am alone in my family

Manojkumar Ishwarbhai Patel, Bardoli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bardoli

ITA 710/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.710/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Manojkumar Ishwarbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bardoli, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax 2/917 Sahil Bungalow, Vs. Office, Bsnl Building, Station Vallabhwadi, Bardoli-394601 Road, Bardoli-394601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bhlpp 2872 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jayraj Dhakan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 25Section 29Section 30Section 69

assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is barred by limitation by 17 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee filed an affidavit to explain sufficient cause and stated that such minor delay may be condoned. 4. However ... Senior DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of assessee for condonation of delay and stated that delay should not be condoned. 5. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. The assessee explained the reasons for delay stating that the consultant who handled the assessee`s appeal

Mukesh Rajendra Prasad Thakur, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Vapi

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 590/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Mukesh Rajendra Prasad Assistant Commissioner Of Thakur Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vs 3-9-9R Navjivan Society, Room No.708, 7Th Floor, Lamington Road, Mumbai- Fortune Square-Ii, Chala, 400008 Daman Road, Vapi-396191 Pan : Aarpt 3055 D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 44ASection 68

delay of seven days in filing appeal before Tribunal. On perusal of record we find shows that assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. In the application for condonation of delay, the assessee has contended that impugned order was received on 19.06.2023 through e-mail of accountant, accountant ... submission of Ld. Sr-DR of the Revenue and perused the materials available on record. First we shall consider the issue of condonation of delay in filing this appeal. We find that assessee explained the delay by taking plea that his accountant has lost sight, though appeal fee was filed

Om Sai Stone Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(4), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 667/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

filed on 03.10.2023, thus there is delay of 84 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay of 84 days in filing appeal. The application of assessee is supported by affidavit of Director of assessee company. The learned Authorised Representative ... filing appeal within the period of limitation. The cause of delay is not a reasonable one. The assessee should explain the reasons of condonation of delay with plausible and reasonable explanation. To support his view, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court

Om Sai Stone Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1)(4), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 666/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir., 2, Surat vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Surat

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the assessee in ITA

ITA 121/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं/It(Ss)A Nos.23 & 24/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 3, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.118/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Acit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Circle -1(2), Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 2, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं It(Ss)A Nos.90/Srt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Dcit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Central Circle – 3, Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat. Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68Section 69A

that said appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation for one hundred sixty five (165) days. The contents of petition for condonation of delay are reproduced below: “1. With regards to above subject, it is submitted that I am in receipt of order u/s 143r.w.s 153C ... case of Collector, Land Acquisition V. MST. Katiji & Ors. - 167 ITR 471. wherein it was held that “sufficient cause” for the purpose of condonation of delay should be interpreted with a view to do even-handed justice on merits in preference to approach which scuttles a decision on merits. This

Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Surat vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir., -1(2), Surat

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the assessee in ITA

ITA 118/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68Section 69A

Ansal Buildwell Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1148/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ansal Buildwell Limited Vs. Acit 118, Uff, Prakash, Deep Circle-2 (2) Building, 7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan No.Aaaca2845E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/12/2023 Order

Section 10Section 14Section 14A

thereby sustaining the addition of Rs.565962/-. 3. The appeal is late by 566 days the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by the affidavit of one Rajat Garg who was responsible for handling the income tax matter of the assessee. 4. We have given a thoughtful

Vizag Companys Steel, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 245/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 69A

days filing the appeal. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the petition, along with an affidavit, filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay wherein the assessee explained the reasons for belated filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The relevant portion of the affidavit is extracted herein below ... stipulated time. In our considered opinion, the explanation given by the assessee constitutes ‘reasonable and sufficient cause’ and 3 therefore we hereby condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that

Shri Modh Patni Ghanchi Gnati Punch Trust, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(6), Surat

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

ITA 88/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.88/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Shri Modh Patni Ghanchi Gnati Income Tax Officer, Punch Trust, Vs. Ward-2(3)(6), Bahulbaug, Prichhadi Road, Surat Haripura, Surat-395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabts 2898 D (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 11(1)(a)Section 154

Alternatively, the Ld. DR for the Revenue, also argued that matter may be remitted back to the file of CIT(Exemption) to condone the delay in filing Form No.-10B and the Tribunal should not condone the delay, as the Ld.CIT(Exemption) has necessary power to condone the delay ... filing audit report, hence matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld.CIT(Exemption) to condone the delay. 7. In rejoinder, the Ld. Counsel submitted that audit report in Form-10B, was of course, available with the assessee but it could not be filed before the lower authorities

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Union of Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeals are returned and for statistical purposes are dismissed

ITA 1720/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Union Bank Of India (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Dcit-3(4) 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Central Accounts Dept. 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, World Trade Centre, Vs. 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Union Bank Of India (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Dcit-3(4) 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Central Accounts Dept. 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Mumbai-400 005 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu0564G

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan CAFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR

Section 143(3)

parties prayed that their appeal may be dismissed as not maintainable and directed to file the appeal at Hyderabad Benches with the condonation of delay to be excluded till the date of this order. In short, both the parties submit that these appeals may be transferred to Hyderabad Bench

M/S Union Bank of India (E-Andhra Bank), Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals are returned and for statistical purposes are dismissed

ITA 1675/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan CAFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR

Section 143(3)