“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

Ankita Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-5, New Delhi

ITA 687/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 28Section 69A

office has reported that there is delay of 41 days in filing the present appeals. The assessee has not filed any application seeking condonation of delay. No one has even attended the proceedings despite various opportunities given to the assessee. Therefore, the present appeals filed by the assessee cannot

Ankita Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-5, New Delhi

ITA 686/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 28Section 69A

Baba Gangan Sadh Gaushala, Sonipat vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

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

ITA 1906/DEL/2020[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : Nil] Baba Gangan Sadh Gaushala, Vs Cit(E), Vpo Tihar Malik, Tehsil Gohana, Chandigarh. Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Aacab5168R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jitendra Malik, Founder Of Gaushala & Shri Phool Kumar, Pradhan Respondent By Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld.Cit(Exemption), Chandigarh Dated 21.09.2020 For The Assessment Year Nil.

Section 12A

time of hearing.” 3. The present appeal filed by the assessee is barred by 07 days. An application dated 08.03.2022, seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee. As per the application, it is stated that the assessee was required to file the present appeal upto

Shailbala Chowdary L/H Late Shri Kailashchandra Chowaday, Yavatmal vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed in the terms indicated above

ITA 205/NAG/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Oct 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subramanyam

Section 153C

outset, we find that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 1995 days. The appellant filed a petition for condonation of delay by stating that the appellant, who is deceased, could not file the appeal as he was suffering from kidneys ailment and undergone bypass open heart ... remedy within the time prescribed under the Statute. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to condone the delay. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Ramanuja Peetham, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 198/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.198/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Ramanuja Peetham Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.1-104-15, Plot No.40, Sector-5 (Exemption Ward) Ttd Kalyanamandapam Road Visakhapatnam Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aafts4193P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt.A.Aruna, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18 .10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1052984661(1) Dated 19.05.2023 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Trust, Registered U/S 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Had Filed Return Of Income For The A.Y.2016-17 On 09.09.2016, Declaring Nil Income After

For Appellant: Smt.A.Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

return u/s 143(1) since the assessee was not found eligible for exemption u/s 11. 3. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay before DIT(Exemption), Hyderabad and preferred an appeal before CIT(A). Since the assessee has already filed an application for condonation of delay before ... aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and subsequent to filing of the appeal, the Ld.CIT(Exemptions) vide order dated 22.08.2023 condoned the delay in filing the Form No.10B. Consequently, the Income Tax Officer (Exemptions Ward), 3 I.T.A. No.198/Viz/2023,A.Y.2016-17 Sri Ramanuja Peetham, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam passed an order

Geetha Naga Venkata Krishna Prasad, West Godavari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tanuku

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 161/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A

Wars Ht ate / Date of Hearing > 22.08.2023 ulson et aNka/Date of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 a C2 /JORDER 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 ... with the delay of 119 days. The assessee filed petition for LT.A. No.161/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Geetha Naga Venkata Krishna Prasad, West Godavari se condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee filed an appeal online on 20.01.2023 against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 24.11.2022. The assessee submitted that

Sudheer Chamarthi, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 216/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.216/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Sudheer Chamarthi Vs. Income Tax Officer 12-17-36/1, Somuvari Street Ward-1(1) Kothapet Guntur Guntur [Pan : Axnpc8454A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021- 22/1041354665(1) Dated 23.03.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2017-18 With The Delay Of 163 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit, Submitting That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) Was Uploaded In E-Filing Portal & It Was Not Served Physically. The Assessee Submitted That All His Income Tax Matters Were Entrusted To A Chartered Accountant, Who Did

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

appeal which was delivered to the Registry of the Tribunal on 01.11.2022, causing delay of 163 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the reasons for the delay are beyond the control of the assessee and not intentional. The assessee did not stand benefitted ... filing the appeal with the delay. He therefore prayed to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3 I.T.A. No.216/Viz/2022,A.Y.2017-18 Sudheer Chamarthi, Guntur I have gone through the condonation petition filed by the assessee and find that there is a reasonable cause for the delay, therefore

Baba Farid Sewa Trust, Rewari vs. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

In the result appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

ITA 1619/DEL/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh[U/S 80G] & [U/S 12Aa]

Section 12ASection 80G

circumstances of the case may require or justify.” 3. The appeal is time barred by ten days. The assessee has filed application seeking condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the application. Learned DR opposed the submissions. Looking to the facts as stated

Baba Farid Sewa Trust, Rawari vs. CIT(Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

ITA 1618/DEL/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh[U/S 80G] & [U/S 12Aa]

Section 12ASection 80G

Pir Makhdum Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2255/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not confirming the delay i.e. non-condonation of delay of filing Form 10BB during the course of Assessment which otherwise is to be filed with ITR-7. 2. On the facts ... charitable Trust to lack of knowledge. The assessee further submitted that it has filed an application on 29/11/2019 before the CIT(E) for condonation of delay in filing Form 10BB. The Assessing Officer did not accept the submissions of the assessee for the following reasons:- “ (i) The assessee trust

Signature Services Syndicate, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-20(4), Delhi

Accordingly, ground no. 1 is allowed for statistical

ITA 2522/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

pass-ward etc., came to know of the order passed. The facts narrated and supported with affidavit, justify allowing the application seeking condonation of delay and accordingly ordered. 4. At the time of hearing on the merits of the issue it was pointed out by the learned AR that amounts

Sureshbhai Manibhai Patel, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 103/SRT/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Sureshbhai Manibhai Patel Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat-2, Surat 2Nd Floor, Room At & P.O.Vanskui, Vanskui, Vs. Tal. Mahuva, Dist Surat- No. 227, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, 394240 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anbpp 7561 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R

Section 144Section 148Section 263

assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11, is barred by limitation by 404 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the entire delay period of 404 days are due to Covid-19 pandemic, which is covered ... motu Writ Petition of Hon'ble Supreme Court to condone the delay, vide Writ Petition(s) No.3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022. Therefore, ld Counsel contended that delay of 404 days may be condoned. 4 Learned CIT-DR for the Revenue did not raise any objection for condonation of delay

M/S. Konark Automobiles, Rourkela vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 123/CTK/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Konark Automobiles, C M/S. Konark Automobiles, C- Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur Pr. Cit, Sambalpur 4/15, 4/15, Ground Ground Floor, Floor, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela. Township, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaffk 3507 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Ld : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Ld Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/10 10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10 /10/2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, ld

appeal can only be condoned, when sufficient reason is shown before the court for the delay with an affidvait. The assessee who seeks condonation of delay therefore must explain the delay. In this appeal, the assessee has only filed condonation petition without supporting affidavit and there is no proper explanation ... delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, we reject the application of condonation for delay and dismiss the appeal treating the same as infructous. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 13/10/2023. sd/- (Rajesh Kumar) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT

Rourkela Development Authority, Rourkela vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 118/CTK/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Rourkela Rourkela Development Development Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur Pr. Cit, Sambalpur Authority, Udit Nagar, Rourkela. Authority, Udit Nagar, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaalr 0294 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Ld : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Ld Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/10 10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10 /10/2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, ld

appeal can only be condoned, when sufficient reason is shown before the court for the delay with an affidavit. The assessee who seeks condonation of delay therefore must explain the delay. In this appeal, the assessee has only filed condonation petition without supporting affidavit and there is no proper explanation ... delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, we reject the application of condonation for delay and dismiss the appeal treating the same as infructous. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 13/10/2023. SD/- sd/- (Rajesh Kumar) (George Mathan

Saurastra Vipassana Research Centre, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 259/RJT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. J. Boricha, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)

appeal before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that it was in the process of preferring an application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B. However, the denial of exemption by the Assessing Officer was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) in the following words:- “As seen from above, when ... assessee submitted that the Hon’ble CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad vide order passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 06.04.2022 has condoned the delay by the assessee in filing of Form 10B for the assessment year under consideration. Accordingly, it was submitted that since the delay in filing

Shri Chaturlal Gond, Bhopal vs. The ITO-1, Itarsi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 198/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Chatur Lal Gond, Ito-1, 72, Balajee Niwas

Section 144Section 250(6)

Shri Chaturlal Gond, Bhopal vs. ITO-1, Itarsi. Assessment year 2017-18 submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp. Drawing our attention to same, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee, after receipt of order of CIT(A), communicated ... assessee in making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. Therefore, Ld. AR prays to condone the delay. Ld. DR left the matter to the wisdom of Bench. We have considered the explanation of assessee and in absence of any contrary fact

The Wanka Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd, Tapi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward2 Bardoli, Bardoli

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

ITA 470/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.470/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) The Wanka Vividh Karyakari Seva Income Tax Officer, Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Ward-2, Bardoli, Income Vs At & Po Wanka, Taluka-Nizar, Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Bsnl Tapi-394370 Building, Opp. Jalaram Akshaymodi40@Gmail.Com Temple, Station Road, Pan No: Aahft 1009 K Bardoli-394601 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

eligible for claiming such deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) also held that assessee had optioned to file partition before jurisdictional Commissioner for condonation of delay in filing returned of income. 6. I find that in the present appeal, the dispute is very narrow as to whether the assessee is eligible

Parvindar Singh, Jabalpur vs. Assitant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

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

ITA 114/JAB/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleparvindar Singh, Vs. Acit, Circle 2(1), 526, Madan Mahal, Jabalpur-48200, Jabalpur-482001, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Asaps9672A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Dhiraj Ghai.Fca.Ar Respondent By : Shri. Shiv Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Dhiraj Ghai.FCA.ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shiv Kumar.DR

delay of 25 days in filing the Parvindar Singh, Jabalpur. appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and filed an application for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned are reasonable and the Ld.DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised

Commissioner, Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack vs. ITO(TDS), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.83/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Commissioner, Vs Ito (Tds), Cuttack Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Choudhury Bazar, Dist: Cuttack Tan No. :Bbnc 00195 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & Sanjeev Swain, Advs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 31.10.2019, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0398/2015- 16 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 25 Days For Which The Assessee Has Filed Necessary Application For Condonation Of Delay & The Affidavit. The Reason For Delay Is Mentioned To Be On Account Of Urinary Infection & High Blood Pressure & The Consequential Medical Treatment. The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee Has Not Been Controverted By The Revenue. Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Disposed Off On Merits. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Issue In The Appeal Was Against Holding The Assessee As An Assessee In Default For Non-Deduction

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra & Sanjeev Swain, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr. DR

Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

year 2014-2015. 2. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 25 days for which the assessee has filed necessary application for condonation of delay and the affidavit. The reason for delay is mentioned to be on account of urinary infection and high blood pressure and the consequential medical

Sharad Goyal, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1510/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 156Section 263

appeal of the assessee as infructuous and direct the assessee to file appeal before National Faceless Appeal Centre with appropriate application for condonation of delay. A.Y.2017-18 Sharad Goyal 06. In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed as not maintainable. Order pronounced in the open court