← 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

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, TDS Circle, Panaji

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 170/PAN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

Managing committee of Raghunathpur Academy and Ors’ reported in [2013, 9 SCR 782 (SC)]; (a) Lack of bonafied imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact; (b) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and totally unfettered free play ... gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of the law of limitation. (f) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring notion that Courts are required to condone delay on bedrock of principle

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, TDS Circle, Panaji

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 169/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

Managing committee of Raghunathpur Academy and Ors’ reported in [2013, 9 SCR 782 (SC)]; (a) Lack of bonafied imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact; (b) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and totally unfettered free play ... gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of the law of limitation. (f) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring notion that Courts are required to condone delay on bedrock of principle

Asif Abdulhak Soudagar, Kumta vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2, Karwar, Karawar

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

ITA 145/PAN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.145/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Asif Abdulhak Soudagar, National E – Vs Soudagar Chicken Centre, Assessment Centre, . Old Fish Market Road, Delhi-110001. Kumta, . Uttarakannada-581343, Karnataka. Pan: Diyps8481L (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 144

filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the 2 ITA. No.145/PAN/2025 Asif Abdulhak soudagar. assesse has filed the affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, condone the delay and admit the appeal

Balu Vithal Pawale, Pune vs. ITO WD- 2(4), Pune

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

ITA 2869/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2869/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Balu Vithal Pawale, V Assessing Officer, Village-Kasarsai, S National Faceless Taluka-Mulsi, Assessment Centre, Dist-Pune – 410506. Delhi Pan:Bfcpp7170L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 08/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 16.10.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 27.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 144BSection 147rSection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

time of hearing.” Delay : 2. There was a delay of 332 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay. We have perused the Affidavit and are convinced that there is reasonable and sufficient cause for delay. Hence, delay is condoned. Findings & Analysis

Sujit Kumar Deb, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 3565/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 143(1)

also the appellant had claimed the same in revised return of income filed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the condonation of delay application of the appellant. Reasons assigned by him are wrong and insufficient. 3. The Appellant craves to add, alter or delete all or modify ... demand is still outstanding and has filed appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The assessee before the ld. CIT (A) therefore, prayed to condone the delay. However, the ld. CIT (A) did not condonethe delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. 5. The ld. DR has submitted that

Rama Kant Tiwari, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Faridabad

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

ITA 6230/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri D C Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

hereinafter referred to as, “Act”). 2. At the threshold, it is noted that the Appeals are time-barred by 155 days. Applications for condonation of delay along with an affidavit has been filed by the assessee. It has been submitted therein that the notices issued by the NFAC

Rama Kant Tiwari, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad

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

ITA 6229/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri D C Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

hereinafter referred to as, “Act”). 2. At the threshold, it is noted that the Appeals are time-barred by 155 days. Applications for condonation of delay along with an affidavit has been filed by the assessee. It has been submitted therein that the notices issued by the NFAC

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17, Delhi vs. M/S Mani Capital Limited, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3856/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-17, Vs. M/S Mani Capital Limited, New Delhi 14, Ratan Mahal, 15/197, Room No. 244, E-2, Ara Civil Lines, Kanpur, Centre Uttar Pradesh Jhandewalan Extn., (Pan: Aaacd4969L) New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)Section 69A

delay of 73 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and in this regard, the Revenue has filed the application for condonation of delay in dispute by stating that due to significant workload and pending pressuring matters have resulted in inadvertent delay in filing the appeal. It was also ... records, we are of the considered view that reasonable cause has been attributed to the Revenue which was not intentional, hence, we condone the delay of 73 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed further. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the original return

Swavalamban Avam Swabhimaan Foundation, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption ), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3331/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 80G

order dated 10.03.2025. 2. These two appeals are filed with the delay of 11 days and the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. Considering the rival submissions and the reasons explained by the assessee in filing the appeals with

Swavalamban Avam Swabhimaan Foundation, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3328/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 80G

order dated 10.03.2025. 2. These two appeals are filed with the delay of 11 days and the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. Considering the rival submissions and the reasons explained by the assessee in filing the appeals with

ITO, New Delhi vs. Ruptex Mineral Water Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is dismissed and cross-objection filed by Assessee are allowed

ITA 3073/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ruptex Mineral Water Private New Delhi. Limited, K No. 799/1 Village Burari Jagatpur B.O. Jagatpur New Delhi. Pin: 1100 84, Delhi Pan :Aabcr0261Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

limitation. Therefore, delay of 15 days in filing cross-objection due to time taken in engagement of counsel is condoned. Application for condonation of delay of 15 days filing cross-objection is allowed. 8. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department of Revenue submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting

Herin Pravinchandra Kothari, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-DCIT/ACIT-2(1), RKT, Rajkot

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

ITA 982/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 982/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2020-21 Herin Pravinchandra Kothari Ito, Wd – 2(1), Viral-Saraswati Society, Opp. Sonal, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Nirmala Road, Rajkot-360001 Road, Rajkot-360001 Pan : Actpk7690P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2020-21 is barred by limitation by 57 days. The assessee moved a petition for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee explained the Ankit Anilbhai Abhani reasons for delay stating that order ... interest of justice. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. 4. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. I have also gone through the petition of condonation of delay and Affidavit submitted

Bhagu Bhurabhai Varchand, Kutch vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gdham, Kutch

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

ITA 959/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 957, 958 & 959/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2021-22) Bhagu Bhurabhai Varchand The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, H-21/Near Temple Dagara, Vs. Gdham Dagala/Dagara Madhapar S.O Aayakar Bhavan, Near Leva Patel Madhapar 370020, Gujarat India Hospital, Mundra, Bhuj Gujarat 370001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bcppv8921D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2026 : 13/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271Section 272A(1)(d)

file of AO therefore, there penalties do not have any leg to stand. 7. I note that Ld. CIT(A) did note condone the delay in filing there three appeals before him. The ld. Counsel for the assessee adverted my attention to the respective IT No.957, 958&959/Rjt/2025 Bhagu Bharatbhai ... archand appeals and affidavit filed in this regard by way of statements, citing reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay in their three appeals which belong to the same assessee. A perusal of the sufficient cause explained, given me an impression

Bhagu Bhurabhai Varchand, Kutch vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gdham, Kutch

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

ITA 958/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 957, 958 & 959/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2021-22) Bhagu Bhurabhai Varchand The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, H-21/Near Temple Dagara, Vs. Gdham Dagala/Dagara Madhapar S.O Aayakar Bhavan, Near Leva Patel Madhapar 370020, Gujarat India Hospital, Mundra, Bhuj Gujarat 370001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bcppv8921D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2026 : 13/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271Section 272A(1)(d)

file of AO therefore, there penalties do not have any leg to stand. 7. I note that Ld. CIT(A) did note condone the delay in filing there three appeals before him. The ld. Counsel for the assessee adverted my attention to the respective IT No.957, 958&959/Rjt/2025 Bhagu Bharatbhai ... archand appeals and affidavit filed in this regard by way of statements, citing reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay in their three appeals which belong to the same assessee. A perusal of the sufficient cause explained, given me an impression

Bhagu Bhurabhai Varchand, Kutch vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gdham, Mundra

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

ITA 957/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 957, 958 & 959/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2021-22) Bhagu Bhurabhai Varchand The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, H-21/Near Temple Dagara, Vs. Gdham Dagala/Dagara Madhapar S.O Aayakar Bhavan, Near Leva Patel Madhapar 370020, Gujarat India Hospital, Mundra, Bhuj Gujarat 370001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bcppv8921D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2026 : 13/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271Section 272A(1)(d)

file of AO therefore, there penalties do not have any leg to stand. 7. I note that Ld. CIT(A) did note condone the delay in filing there three appeals before him. The ld. Counsel for the assessee adverted my attention to the respective IT No.957, 958&959/Rjt/2025 Bhagu Bharatbhai ... archand appeals and affidavit filed in this regard by way of statements, citing reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay in their three appeals which belong to the same assessee. A perusal of the sufficient cause explained, given me an impression

Mamta Dholpure, Indore vs. ITO 3(3), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 712/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271

registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 84 days and therefore time-barred. The assessee has_ filed an application/affidavit for condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re- produced for an immediate reference: Page 2 of 7 Mamta Dholpure ITA No. 712/Ind/2025 - AY 2016-17 Serial ... FACELSS INCOME TAX APPEALATE TRIBUNAL. (APPEALS) in the matter of Mamta Dholepure for the Assessment Year 2016-17. Affidavit For Condonation of Delay, in Filing The Appeal Against Assessment Order Of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) di 21.03.2025 04:10 PM AFFIDAVIT Name : MAMTA DHOLEPURE Husband's name —_ : SHUBHASH DHOLEPURE

Shri Avinash Bansal, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 4(3), Indore

ITA 682/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 147Section 270A

informed that the present appeal is delayed by 84 days and therefore time-barred. The assessee has filed an application/ affidavit for condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference: 34 भारतीय गैर न्यायिक JOTAABS 100 NMEENA AGATE & NOTARY GOVT. INDIA NOTARIA. No. 56710/2025

Sharda Devi, Basti vs. Income Tax Officer, Basti

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

ITA 525/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Sharda Devi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, W/O Shyam Singh, Near Zila Basti-New Chikitsalaya, Purani Basti, Basti-2721 Pan: Auspd8424B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 16.01.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of Penalty Passed By The Ld. Ao Dated 17.01.2022 In Limine Without Going Into The Merits Of The Case. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Being Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period Under Section 69A R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act, Which Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law Be Deleted. 02. Because The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Assessee Is Carrying On The Business Of Household Items, Such As, Business Of Achar, Kuchry (Grocery) Declaring Profit Under Section 44Ad @ 8% Wherein The Provisions Of Section 68 & Section 69 Are Not Applicable, The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law Be Deleted. 03. Because The Explanation Furnished By The Assessee Has Not Been Found False Of Untrue, The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Be Deleted.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 271ASection 44ASection 68Section 69Section 69A

being heard by issue of notices on various dates. Some compliance had been made by the assessee but he held that for condoning the delay, it must be proved beyond the shadow of doubt that the assessee was diligent and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever. He relied upon ... Fields Ltd., AIR 196 SC 361 to state that day by day delay had to be explained and no party was entitled to condonation of delay as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause was a condition precedent for the exercise of discretional jurisdiction vested

Dr. R.M. Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 519/LKW/2025[201-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194J

assessment order so passed, assessee filed appeal before the office of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC with a prayer for the condonation of delay of 20 days. 7. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide his order dated 27.08.2024 dismissed the appeal in limine by observing that ... that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred and therefore, condoning the delay in the given facts of the case, we admit the appeal for consideration. 3 Dr. R.M. Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences

Keshav Singh, Ambedkar Nagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 127/LKW/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

removed by the appellant assessee. The appellant I.T.A. No.127/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 2 assessee has not even filed application for condonation of delay. The aforementioned defects are as under: (i) Tribunal appeal fee filed in wrong head/category (ii) Appeal is time barred by 680 days (C) In view ... Registry of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, vide order sheet entry dated 12/03/2024. If the assessee does so, and files application for condonation of delay; the matter(s) will be dealt with in ITAT, in accordance with law. (D) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. (Order pronounced