← 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

Gangeshwar Seva Mandal Charitable Trust, Surat vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 589/SRT/2023[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Surat03 Nov 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 12ASection 154Section 254(1)Section 80G

assessee submits that he has filed application for ITA No. 588 & 589/SRT/2023 Gangeshwar Seva Mandal Charitable Trust Vs CIT(E) condonation of delay which is supported with affidavit of Managing Trustee, Kantibhai Patel. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the impugned order was passed ... required by ld. CIT(E) was already furnished. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that there is sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. 3. On merit of the case, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the application of assessee

Gangeshwar Seva Mandal Charitable Trust, Surat vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 588/SRT/2023[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Surat03 Nov 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 12ASection 154Section 254(1)Section 80G

assessee submits that he has filed application for ITA No. 588 & 589/SRT/2023 Gangeshwar Seva Mandal Charitable Trust Vs CIT(E) condonation of delay which is supported with affidavit of Managing Trustee, Kantibhai Patel. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the impugned order was passed ... required by ld. CIT(E) was already furnished. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that there is sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. 3. On merit of the case, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the application of assessee

Jagdish Prasad Singhania, Raipur vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 81/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 81/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Jagdish Prasad Singhania 14, Bazar Para, Ward Singhania Sadan, Main Road, Tilda, Neora, Raipur (C.G.)-493 114 Pan : Ajkps0565M

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 201(1)Section 221Section 271C

drive home the aforesaid factual position. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) objected to the seeking of the condonation of delay in filing the present appeal by the assessee. The Ld. DR submitted that as there was no justifiable reason, therefore, the inordinate delay involved

Dhanesh Jyotindra Kothari, Mumbai Suburban vs. Income Tax Office(It)-3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2952/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 2952 & 2951/Mum/2023 (A.Y: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dhanesh Jyotindra Vs. Ito (It) – 3(1)(1), Kothari,A-Wing, Flat No. Air India Bldg, 6, Mahavir Krupa, Nariman Point, Vallabh Baug Lane, Mumbai-400021. Extn. Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-4000077 Pan/Gir No. : Adapk9004H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Kirit.S.Sanghvi.Ar Respondent By : Shri. G.J.Ninawe. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 147 R.W.S 144C & U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri.Kirit.S.Sanghvi.ARFor Respondent: Shri. G.J.Ninawe. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

raised the following grounds of appeal 1. Delay not condoned The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him without appreciating that the appellant had a bona fide reason which caused delay in filing the appeal Relief claimed ... 2951/Mum/2023 Dhanesh Jyotindra Kothari., Mumbai. delay of 21 days in filling the appeal and the CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing

Shri Sanjiv Vishwanath Rungta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1852/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj R Toprani & MsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhandra Mahjan. Sr.DR
Section 69A

filing the appeals ITA No. 1852, 1881 & 1882/Mum/2023 Shri Sanjiv Vishwanath Rungta., Mumbai. before the Hon’ble Tribunal and filed the application for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the application are reasonable and the Ld.DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit

Shreemangal Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd, Raigarh vs. ACIT-2(1), Bilaspur

ITA 268/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 268/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shreemangal Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. C/O. Kailash Chandra Agrawal, Station Road, Kharsia, Raigarh (C.G.)-496 661 Pan : Aajcs0895F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

part, thus, may kindly be condoned. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) raised an objection to seeking of condonation of delay involved in the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. After thoughtful consideration of the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, it transpires

Basant Sekhani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 585/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 13/1/2018. Alongwith appeal, the assessee filed application for condonation of delay of 350 days in filing appeal. The assessee filed detailed affidavit explaining the cause of delay. The ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay, resultantly the appeal ... assessee also filed appeal against such orders. In those appeal, the assessee in both of those appeals also filed similar application for condonation of delay of 270 days in both the appeals, on similar set of facts/similar plea. The ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC in such both the appeals in appeal

Basant Sekhani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 584/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 13/1/2018. Alongwith appeal, the assessee filed application for condonation of delay of 350 days in filing appeal. The assessee filed detailed affidavit explaining the cause of delay. The ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay, resultantly the appeal ... assessee also filed appeal against such orders. In those appeal, the assessee in both of those appeals also filed similar application for condonation of delay of 270 days in both the appeals, on similar set of facts/similar plea. The ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC in such both the appeals in appeal

Orient Craft Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Gurgaon

ITA 1097/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

advised to file an appeal as against the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, a liberal approach may be taken for condonation of delay since assessee’s application for rectification of the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act has been filed within time and same

The Neerikode Service Co-Op Bank Limited No 1682, Neericode vs. ITO Ward 3, Aluva

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable, and the stay applications dismissed as infructuous

ITA 954/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Jose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

What alone is relevant is if he displayed a sense of responsibility, acting with due care and despatch. The two ingredients necessary for condoning the delay, which could only be the result of a positive, affirmative action, i.e., (a) proof of absence of negligence, and (b) proof of satisfactory level ... order under appeal becoming final and binding between the parties. The concepts of liberal approach and reasonableness in the exercise of discretion in condonation of delay has also been duly explained by the Hon’ble Court w.r.t. judicial precedents, toward which we extract therefrom, as under: ‘5.6 The concepts

Alok Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 570/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CITa
Section 271B

inordinate delay of 831 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which assessee filed an application dated 30-08-2023 for condonation of delay with the prayer mentioned as under:- ‘’1. That the impugned order dated 31-03-2021 was uploaded on the portal ... condoned and appeal is not admitted. 3 SHRI ALOK MAHESHWRI VS ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR It is therefore prayed to condone the delay and admit the appeal.’’ To this effect the assessee has filed an affidavit deposing the facts as narrated in the condonation application. 2.2 During the course

Digamber Singh & Sons Properties Private Limited, Kumher vs. ITO, WD-1, Bharatpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 421/JPR/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4Section 40A(3)

appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an affidavit stating the reasons for delay and prayed for condonation of delay, the content of the affidavit reads as under :- 3 Digamber Singh & Sons Properties Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO 3. On this issue during the course ... hearing, the ld. DR objected to assessee’s application for condonation of delay but at same time prayed that Court may decide the issue as deem fit in the interest of justice. 4. We have heard the contention of the parties and perused the materials available on record. The prayer

Society for Govt. of Odisha Ashok Leyland Hmv Dti, Chhatia/AOP, Jajpur vs. ITO, Exemption, Cuttack

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

ITA 283/CTK/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.283/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2016-2017) Society For Govt. Of Odisha Ashok Vs Ito (Exemption), Cuttack Leyland Hmv Driver Training Inst. Village: Vidyadharpur, Chhatia, Jajpur-754023 Pan No. :Aahas 8958 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 12.06.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1053666783(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Decided The Appeal Of The Assessee In A Very Casual Manner By Mentioning That Documents Were Not Submitted. It Was Submitted That Adequate Opportunities Have Not Been Granted To The Assessee. It Was Also Submitted That In The Original Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act, There Was No Demand Raised On The Assessee. Subsequently, An Order U/S.154 Of The Act Was Passed On 17.12.2018 Without Issuing Show Cause Notice To The Assessee & Without Hearing The Assessee Wherein A Demand Has Been Raised. It Was The Submission That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Liable To Be Set Aside As Also The Order Passed U/S.154 Of The Act Is Liable To Be Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan Dash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

liable to be upheld. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. On perusal of the petition for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal along with affidavit, shows that the delay was on account of getting the proper advice from the counsel belatedly. As the assessee has given reasonable

Suraj Salian Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 717/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharishi, Am Before Shri. Prashant Maharishi, A & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, J Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, D.R
Section 143(3)

parties. The Bench categorically noted that there was no both the parties. The Bench categorically noted that there was no application seeking condonation of delay, on record. Consequently, application seeking condonation of delay, on record. Consequently, application seeking condonation of delay, on record. Consequently, Page 2 of 3 notice ... appeal for hearing on 26/9/2023. 03. On the date of hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any application for condonation of delay was filed. Even on earlier occasions also, there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee. The Memorandum of Appeal filed by the assessee

Chryso, Paris vs. DCIT Circle Int. Tax 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 296/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Chryso Paris, Versus Dcit, Circle 3(1)(1), 19, Place De La Resistance International Taxation, 92445, Cedex, Issy Les Delhi. Moulineaux, France. Pan: Aadcc0892N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Shreya Loyalka, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 154

Having noticed that there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal and the explanation offered by the assessee seeking condonation of delay is unsatisfactory, learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine without condoning the delay. 5. Before us, the submission of the assessee is two-fold. Firstly

M/S B.S.Ispat Limited, Nagpur vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax Circle- 1, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 64/NAG/2018[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Oct 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya

available on record. 3. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 403 days. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay along with notarized affidavit dated 13-03-2018 explaining the reasons for delay. On perusal of the same, we note that the appeal could ... reasons were found in application as well as notarized affidavit. Therefore, the reasons stated by the assessee not acceptable and the application seeking condonation of delay of 403 days is rejected. 3 ITA No. 64/NAG/2018, A.Y. 2012-13 4. In view of our decision in dismissing the application for condonation

Shree Shreyaskar Adinath Swetambar Murti Poojak Tapagach Jain Sangh, Dhasagam, Bhavnagar-364290 vs. The CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 337/RJT/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Oct 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R
Section 12A

observe that there is a delay of 318 days in filing of the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing of the present appeal and has also filed affidavit along with such application. In the aforesaid application-affidavit, the assessee submitted that ... Shree Shreyaskar Adinath Swetambbhar Murtipoojak Tapagachh-Jain Samaj vs. CIT (E) assessee. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, the application for condonation of delay in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned. 4. On merits, the counsel for the assessee submitted that since incorrect email had been inadvertently mentioned

Pramodbhai Balubhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1)(3), Surat

ITA 622/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.622/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Pramodbhai Balubhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, D-204, Capital Status, Karan Park Ward- 3(1)(3), Road, Adajan, Surat – 395005. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adppp8613C (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 54E

assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is barred by limitation by thirty-one days. The assessee has moved a petition for condonation of delay. The contents of the petition for condonation of delay are reproduced below: “1- That appeal order of NFAC, Delhi is dated 12.06.2023 has been communicated through ... also arbitrary. This affidavit is prepared to file in the office of the Hon'ble ITAT, Surat Bench, Surat in the matter of condonation of delay in filing of my appeal for A.Y. 2012-13. All contents of affidavit are true and correct and binding upon me. I have been

Rameshchandra Budhiyabhai Ahir, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Bardoli

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

ITA 621/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.621/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Rameshchandra Budhiyabhai Ahir, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Pilutha Faliyu, At & Post – Ward-1, Bardoli, Income Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Siyalaj, Tal – Magrol, Dist – Surat, Surat – 394110 Bsnl Building, Station Road, Bardoli-394601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alfpa7625Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 51

year (AY) 2017-18 is barred by limitation by thirty seven (37) days. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition for condonation of delay, are reproduced below: ITA.621/SRT/2023/AY.2017-18 Rameshchandra B. Ahir ... decided on merits after hearing the parties. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of -37- days in filing the appeal and hear the case on merits and thus render justice.” 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also

Kamaldeep Harcharanjitsingh Dang, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 408/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.408/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) Kamaldeep Harcharanjitsingh Vs. The Ito, Dang, Ward – 3(1)(1), 79A, Silver Oak Farm, Road Surat No.4, Ghitorni, New Delhi – 110030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acepd3949B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)

Bench to Delhi Benches of the Tribunal. Considering the submission of ld. AR of the assessee, the appeal of assessee alongwith application for condonation of delay is dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee is given liberty to file the appeal before the Delhi Benches of Tribunal and to pursue the same ... barred by limitation by one thousand three hundred sixty (1360) days. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted the petition for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the delay, which is reproduced below: “AFFIDAVIT I, Kamaldeep Harcharanjitsingh Dang S/o Late Mr. Harcharanjit Singh Dang R/o 79A, Dang Farm