“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

Saroj Gopal Educational Society, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption (Ward-2), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations above

ITA 19/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.19/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Saroj Gopal Educational Society, 137, New Civic Centre, Bhilai Durg (C.G.)-490 006 Pan: Aadas6074L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward-2, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154

exemption u/ss.11 & 12 of the Act, the A.O raised a consequential demand of Rs.35.11 lacs. 4. The assessee society filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing “Form No.10” before the CIT(Exemption), Bhopal which he rejected vide his order No. CIT (Exempt)/BPL/Condonation of delay Form 10B/2020- ... Form No.10B filed on 28.03.2018, which were filed after filing the return of income. Also, the application filed by the assessee society seeking condonation of delay in “Form No.10” with the CIT(Exemption), Bhopal, was declined vide order dated 08.07.2020. As the Ld. AR had at the very outset submitted

Global Television Services Pty Ltd, Australia vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1612/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessment order served to the assessee on 26/12/2019 and the last date for filing the appeal was 25/01/2020, however, the appeal has been filed on 31/08/2020, therefore, the Global Television Services Pty Ltd. vs. ITO Page 3 of 5

Section 144Section 147

facts & circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the request of Condonation of delay for genuine reasons, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 1 of 5 Global Television Services ... immediately after, there were Covid- 19 situations followed by nationwide lockdown. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with direction to decide

Gauri Dhirenkumar Shah, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(4), Bharuch

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

ITA 394/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita Nos.394 & 388/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Gauri Dhirenkumar Shah Income Tax Officer, 1, Brahamin Faliya, Ward-1(4), Vs Ladeshwar, Bharuch Nr. Swaminarayan Temple, Bharuch-392011 Pan No: Ahnps 2989 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 147Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

filed on 01.06.2023, the Registry pointed out the delay of eight days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay of eight days in filing the appeal. The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee submits that assessee is widow, her husband died ... delay properly and she simply took a plea that assessee is not conversant with the procedure, which cannot be a proper explanation for condoning such delay. The ld DR for revenue submits that assessee even not appeared before the assessing officer and not filed her submissions before

Gauri Dhirenkumar Shah, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(4), Bharuch

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

ITA 388/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Section 147Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

Shri Parnami Panchayat, Jaipur vs. ITO, (Exemptions), Ward-1, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 14/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani (C.A) &For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 11Section 12ASection 234B

registration, tax liability is fastened even though they may otherwise be eligible for exemption and fulfill other substantive conditions. However, the power of condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available. 8.3 In order to provide relief to such trusts and remove hardship in genuine cases, section

Rajesh Kalra, Hanumangarh Town vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Bikaner

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 37/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoterajesh Kalra, Vs. Dcit, Circle – 1, Prop. M/S. Zodiac Bikaner – 334001, Imaging & Diagnostic Rajasthan. Centre, Hanumangarh -335513, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Akapk9599E Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Prerana Choudhary, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Cit(A) & Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Prerana Choudhary

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

There is a delay of 85 days in filing the appeal before the Honble Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld.DR has no specific Rajesh Kalra, Hanumangarh. objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay

Chintel India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

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

ITA 6140/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

filed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-27, New Delhi dated 07.06.2019 for AYs 2011-12 & 2013-14. Issue of denial of condonation of delay by ld. CIT(A). 2. The ld. counsel submitted that order passed by ld CIT A dated 07/06/2019 ... squarely covered by Hon'ble ITAT order in identical facts in assessee own case which required lenient and compassionate consideration in matter of condonation of delay thus order of Ld CIT-A being perverse and arbitrary deserves to be overruled. The ld. counsel drawing our attention towards condonation petition filed

Chintel India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

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

ITA 6139/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

M/S. Regent Hotels, Rourkela vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalure

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

ITA 212/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack16 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.212/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Regent Hotel, Vs Ito, Ward-5, Rourkela Bisra Road, Rourkela-769011 Pan No. :Aakfr 4838 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/08/2023 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, Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051193390(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 11 Days, For Which The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition, Wherein He Has Mentioned That Delay Was On Account Of Sickness Of Wife Of The Partner Of Assessee. The Reason Filed By The Assessee Has Not Been Found To Be False. Consequently, The Delay Of 11 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits. 3. A Perusal Of The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Shows That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee On Account Of Delay. A Further Perusal Of The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Shows That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Reckoned The Delay From The Date Of The Intimation. However, The Appeal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 154

appeal are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A), subject to the condition that the assessee shall submit the reason for condonation of delay before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) shall decide the issues in the appeal on merits after considering the delay after

M/S. Chand Mal Arun Kumar, Nimbahera vs. ITO, Ward-3, Chittorgarh

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 271/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur14 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S Chand Mal Arun Vs. Ito – Ward-3 Kumar Chittorgarh, Nawab Ganj, Rajasthan. Nimbahera, Chittorgarh,-312601 Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. Aaafc7970R Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT -DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

submitted that there is delay of 07 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. M/s Chand Mal Arun Kumar Jain, Nawab Ganj Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld.DR has no specific objections ... Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised the following grounds appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining trading addition of Rs. 1 lakh on adhoc basis. The entire addition so made may kindly be deleted

M/S. Swastik Gaur Gum Industries, Churu vs. ITO, Ward-2, Churu

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

ITA 433/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur14 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Mr.Shafi Mohammad,Adv.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

before the Honble ITA No. 431, 432 & 433/Jodh/2018 M/s. Swastik Gaur Gum Industries, Churu Tribunal. The Ld. AR has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld.DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit

M/S. Swastik Gaur Gum Industries, Churu vs. ITO, Ward-2, Churu

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

ITA 432/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur14 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Mr.Shafi Mohammad,Adv.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

M/S. Swastik Gaur Gum Industries, Churu vs. ITO, Ward-2, Churu

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

ITA 431/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur14 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Mr.Shafi Mohammad,Adv.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

NA vs. Ari Malesar Behdin Anjuman, Navsarivs.Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Surat

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

ITA 336/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.336/Srt/2023 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navsari Malesar Behdin Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward, Room Anjuman, Agary Street, Vs No.105, 1St Floor, Anavil Malesar, Business Centre, Aayakar Navsari-396445 Bhavan, Adajan Hazira Road, Pan No. Aaatn 6124 C Adajan, Surat-395007 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

Section 11Section 156Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

delay in filing of assessee’s appeal before NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) and NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) has on appreciation of fact has not condoned the delay in filing 4 Navsari Malesar Behdin Anjuman appeal before him. The ld Sr DR for the revenue prayed for dismissal of appeal. 5. We have ... find that the Ld. CIT(A) has neither verified the facts pleaded by the assessee in his application of condonation of delay nor sought comment of assessing officer nor he verified the fact from e-mail of assessing officer, whether the impugned order was sent on registered e-mail

Mr.Mohd Wasim, Bhopal vs. The ITO -3 (2), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 26/IND/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Mohd. Wasim Khan, Ito, 3(2), House No. 32, Bhopal बनाम/ Yaseen Mahal, Peergate, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/ Appellant) (Revenue/ Respondent) Pan: Abdpw7203P Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal C.A. & Shri N. D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023

Section 144

days beyond last date and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation application with affidavit seeking condonation of delay. So far reason of belated filing is concerned, Ld. AR invited our attention to the averments made by assessee in affidavit re-produced below: Page ... intention of assessee in making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. Ld. AR urged to condone the delay. Ld. DR did not raise any objection and left the matter to the wisdom of Bench. We have considered the explanation of assessee

Damco India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish KanthFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 154Section 250Section 253(1)

Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the assessee has filed an application before CBDT under section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay in claiming the advance tax credit, which is pending consideration. The learned AR also placed on record a copy of the challan payments

Shri Sewaram Charitable Trust, Kota vs. ITO, Ward, Exemption, Udaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/JODH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Section 1Section 11Section 119Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ba)Section 139Section 139(4)Section 139(4)(a)Section 143(1)

appellant quoted Circular No. 2/2020 dated 03.01.2020 issued by the CBDT u/s. 119 of the Act as instruction to subordinate authorities for condoning the delay of filing of Form 10B for A.Y.2018-19 and subsequent years. As per this Circular, Commissioners of Income-tax were authorize to admit belated applications ... condonation of delay under section 119(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and decide on merits. In this regard, as the appellant has not submitted any order of condonation of delay from the Competent Authority hence, this Circular does not come to its rescue. From the combined reading

Annapurna Charitable Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21) Annapurna Charitable Society, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Exemption Ward, Pan: Aaata 3097 P Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 4

Form-10B was filed belatedly. However, during the First Appellate Proceedings, the assessee submitted an order from the Ld. CIT(Exemptions), dated 17/1/2023 condoning the delay in filing of Form-10B for the AY 2020-21. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, considered the condonation granted to the assessee. However ... related to the delayed filing of Form-10B of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that after submitting the condonation of delay in filing the Form-10B of the Act for the AY 2020-21, the Ld. CIT(A) has resorted to deny the exemption

Shri Gusai Baba Gaushala Samiti, Sikar vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

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

ITA 354/JPR/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Aug 2023AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA Nos. 354 & 353/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2023-24 Shri Gusai Baba Gaushala Samiti Gothra Tagelan Sikar Samiti, Gothra Tagelan, Sikar 332 023 cuke Vs. The CIT (Exemption) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABAAS 0888A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Sharvan Gupta, Advocate, Shri Shyam Sunder Goyal, Advocate. jktLo dh vksj ls@Re

For Appellant: Shri Sharvan Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

delay of 69 days in filing both the appeals by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed applications for condonation of delay with following prayers:- “1. In this connection it is submitted that the applicant is Trust/Society. The assessee has filed application before CIT(Exemption), Jaipur ... Land & Acquisition v. Mst. Kotiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has advocated for a very liberal approach while considering a case for condonation of delay. The following observations of the Hon'ble Court are notable: 4 SHRI GUSAI BABA GAUSHALA SAMITI VS CIT (E), JAIPUR "The legislature has conferred

Shri Mansi Rajen Oza, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 32(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1742/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2023AY 2010-2011

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 250

learned CIT(A) on 14/06/2016, which is beyond the statutory time limit of 30 days. In the absence of any reasons for condonation of delay, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Shri Mansi Rajen Oza ITA no.1742/Mum./2023 5. In ground No. 5 raised ... assessee on merits dismissed the same only on the basis that sufficient cause has not been shown by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It appears to be a case wherein the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was filed during the transition period of filing