← 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

M/S Athazhakunnu Mappila L.P School, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward TDS, Kannur

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

ITA 911/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrisanjay Arora & Shriabyt.Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 200A(1)Section 234E

merits, and on which aspect no contentions were raised before us by Shri Raj. That is, much less making out a case for condonation of delay in filing appeals before the first appellate authority, Shri Raj did not even bring this fact to our notice, which is deplorable, as indeed ... office of the ld.CIT(A). Where so, there was thus no occasion for it to plead it’s case, either with regard to condonation of delay or on merits. At column 15 of the Memo of Appeal before the first appellate authority (Form 35),it states some reasons, which therefore

M/S. Raghuveer Metals Industries Ltd., Ajmer vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the

ITA 297/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 297/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Raghuveer Metals Industries Ltd., 21, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer cuke Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCR 7496 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1039/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ce

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (CIT)
Section 143Section 250

hearing, the bench noted that the appeal filed by the assessee was delayed by 1401 days. The assessee company in petition for condonation of delay submitted that the appeal was not filed on account of fault on the part of the authorized representative of the assessee. In support ... Sarkar versus Sudha Rani AIR 1978 SC 537 taken a view that non filing of an affidavit in opposition to an application for condonation of delay be sufficient cause for condonation of delay. As it is in this case revenue has not filed a counter affidavit. Moreover, on its merits

ACIT, Alwar vs. Raghuveer Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the

ITA 1039/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 297/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Raghuveer Metals Industries Ltd., 21, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer cuke Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCR 7496 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1039/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ce

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (CIT)
Section 143Section 250

hearing, the bench noted that the appeal filed by the assessee was delayed by 1401 days. The assessee company in petition for condonation of delay submitted that the appeal was not filed on account of fault on the part of the authorized representative of the assessee. In support ... Sarkar versus Sudha Rani AIR 1978 SC 537 taken a view that non filing of an affidavit in opposition to an application for condonation of delay be sufficient cause for condonation of delay. As it is in this case revenue has not filed a counter affidavit. Moreover, on its merits

Nitin Raghunath Thakur, Mumbai vs. ITO- Ward 33(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1575/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha- Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

there is a delay of 30 days in filing the present appeal and sought to condone the same by moving an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit on the grounds inter-alia that the assessee challenged the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income ... delay is on account of bonafide reasons. 2. However, on the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue opposed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the late filing of appeals in this case is apparently malafide due to callous attitude of the assessee and prayed

Navrang Basant Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-17(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1354/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Toprani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

present appeal has been filed with the delay of 82 days and sought to condone the same by moving an application for condonation of delay with the support of affidavit on the grounds inter-alia that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)]/ National ... when he received demand notice dated 11.03.23. 2. However, on the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue opposed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the late filing of appeals in this case is apparently malafide due to callous attitude of the assessee and prayed

Pathare Prabhu Co Op Hstg Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 22(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 1347/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prashant ChapekarFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

no.1347/Mum./2023 time-barred by 40 days. The assessee has filed separate affidavits signed by the Secretary of the assessee society seeking condonation of delay in both appeals. In the affidavits, it is submitted that since the assessee is not involved in any business activity, therefore, it has not employed ... other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR‖) did not raise any serious objection against the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the present appeals. 3. We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid

Pathare Prabhu Co Op Hstg Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 22(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 1346/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prashant ChapekarFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

no.1347/Mum./2023 time-barred by 40 days. The assessee has filed separate affidavits signed by the Secretary of the assessee society seeking condonation of delay in both appeals. In the affidavits, it is submitted that since the assessee is not involved in any business activity, therefore, it has not employed ... other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR‖) did not raise any serious objection against the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the present appeals. 3. We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid

Hindustan Welfare Blood Donor Club, Phagwara vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 195/ASR/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G(5)(iii)

Apex Court in the case of ‘Esha Bhatacharjee’ as quoted in that judgment at page 4, it has been held that condonation of delay in filing the appeal should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice and generally, the delay in preferring the appeal are required to be condoned ... duly supported by affidavit duly signed by the President of the Society affirming the fact of bonafide reasons. Considering bonafide reasons for condonation of delay, we condone the delay of 104 days and admit the appeal on merits. 9. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the impugned order

Hindustan Welfare Blood Donor Club, Phagwara vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 194/ASR/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G(5)(iii)

Apex Court in the case of ‘Esha Bhatacharjee’ as quoted in that judgment at page 4, it has been held that condonation of delay in filing the appeal should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice and generally, the delay in preferring the appeal are required to be condoned ... duly supported by affidavit duly signed by the President of the Society affirming the fact of bonafide reasons. Considering bonafide reasons for condonation of delay, we condone the delay of 104 days and admit the appeal on merits. 9. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the impugned order

Lakshya Foundation, Jalandhar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 193/ASR/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G(5)(iii)

Apex Court in the case of ‘Esha Bhatacharjee’ as quoted in that judgment at page 4, it has been held that condonation of delay in filing the appeal should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice and generally, the delay in preferring the appeal are required to be condoned ... duly supported by affidavit duly signed by the President of the Society affirming the fact of bonafide reasons. Considering bonafide reasons for condonation of delay, we condone the delay of 104 days and admit the appeal on merits. 9. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the impugned order

Lakshaya Foundation, Jalandhar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 192/ASR/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G(5)(iii)

Apex Court in the case of ‘Esha Bhatacharjee’ as quoted in that judgment at page 4, it has been held that condonation of delay in filing the appeal should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice and generally, the delay in preferring the appeal are required to be condoned ... duly supported by affidavit duly signed by the President of the Society affirming the fact of bonafide reasons. Considering bonafide reasons for condonation of delay, we condone the delay of 104 days and admit the appeal on merits. 9. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the impugned order

Rajesh Kumar, Bahadurgarh vs. ITO, Ward-4, Rohtak

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

ITA 1488/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Ito, S/O-Sh Bhim Singh, 143, Ward-4, Vpo Kassar, Bahadurgarh, Rohtak. Distt.-Jhajjar, Haryana-124508. Pan-Bvxpk1665G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajesh Kumar, Assessee In Person Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023

Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 69

amend, add, delete any ground of appeal with the permission of chair.” 2. The appeal is barred by 17 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing. The assessee appeared

Rits Jewellers Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Faridabad

The Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1886/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Initiating The Proceeding As No Enquiry Was Made By Pr. Cit In Arriving At Conclusion Which Is Contrary In View Of The Jurisdictional & Other High Courts & The Apex Court. D. That Once The Sums Have Been Received Through Banking Channels & Complete Evidences Was Provided During The Course Of The Assessment, Suspicion Raised Purely On Assumptions Is Wholly Unsustainable In Law.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

course of hearing.” 3. There is a delay of 1025 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee filed an application for condoning the delay on the ground of ‘Covid Situations’ and took shelter under the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re:Cognizance for extension of limitation ... serious illness and on account of highly diabetic conditions, the assessee was not able to file the Appeal on time, thus, prayed or condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned

Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 73/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69

assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15, is barred by limitation by 137 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition for condonation of delay are reproduced below: “1- That appeal order of NFAC, Delhi is dated 19.07.2022 has been ... DCIT [ITA Nos.2519 to 2521/Kol/2017, order dated 18.04.2018, wherein under similar set of facts and reasons, the Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to condone the delay of 211 days by holding as under: "3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given

M/S Marathon India Ltd., Rajasthan vs. Smt. Pratima Kaushik, PCIT-1, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no order as to cost

ITA 235/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Jain, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 338Section 80Section 801E

days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the Director of the Company vide letter dated 29-04-2023 prayed to condone the delay by giving therein reason as under:- ‘’Sub: Prayer for condonation of delay in filing of appeal in the case of M/s. Marathon India ... part of the assesseee. 2.5 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. PCIT and objected to grant condonation of delay of 324 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. 2.6 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record

Shilpkars Clothing Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT-22(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1503/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhshilpkars Clothing Vs. Acit-22(2), Company, 702, Rna Kutir, Room No. 417, 4 Th Floor, 14Th Road, Chembur, Tower No. 6, Vashi Mumbai – 400071 Railway Station Building, Complex, Vashi Navi Mumbai - 400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ablfs1537J Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Dharmesh Shah & Jigna Jain Respondent By : Suresh D. Gaikwad Date Of Hearing 13.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-49, Mumbai, Dated 21.03.2022 For A.Y. 2011- 12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: (Grounds) “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Appreciating That The Reopening Of Assessment Was Bad In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Alleged Bogus Purchases By Working Of Peak Credit Amounting To Rs.1,17,10,542/- 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Granting Adequate Opportunity To The Appellant & Dismissing The Appeal. 4. The Appellant Craves Leaves To Add, Amend, Alter, Delete All Or Any Of The Forgoing Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Suresh D. Gaikwad
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69C

Shilpkars Clothing Company Vs. ACIT-22(2) 2. There was a delay in filing this appeal by 347 days. To condone the delay in filing the appeal the assesse has filed petition dated 11.07.2023 along with affidavit. In the petition the assessee submitted that delay in filing the given appeal ... material placed in the paper book we consider that there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the impugned appeal, therefore, we condone the delay in filing this appeal. 3. Fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs.504,33,592/- was filed

Bizznet Online Systems Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-1, Thane

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, subject to the condition aforesaid

ITA 1114/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1112/मुं/2023 ("न.व 2010-11) आअसं. 1114/मुं/2023 ("न.व 2012-13) Bizznet Online Systems Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Gulshan Villa, Oomer Park, Warden Road, Gowalia Tank, Mumbai – 400 026. Pan: Aabcb-2432-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit Circle -1-Thane , 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Wagle Estate, Thane- 400 604. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bharat Gandhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sunny Kachhwaha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/07/2023 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Bharat GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha
Section 143(3)

there was already delay of more than 180 days. The assessee immediately filed appeal before the CIT(A) along with application for condonation of delay. Along with the application the assessee has also field certificate from the Chartered Accountant Shri Hitesh Mehta stating that the delay in filing of appeal ... inordinate delay of 189 days in filing of the appeal before CIT(A). He submitted that the reason given in application for condonation of delay before CIT(A) and the reason given in certificate by the Chartered Accountant for not filing appeal within time are different. Hence, no reliance

Bizznet Online Systems Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-1, Thane

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, subject to the condition aforesaid

ITA 1112/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1112/मुं/2023 ("न.व 2010-11) आअसं. 1114/मुं/2023 ("न.व 2012-13) Bizznet Online Systems Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Gulshan Villa, Oomer Park, Warden Road, Gowalia Tank, Mumbai – 400 026. Pan: Aabcb-2432-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit Circle -1-Thane , 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Wagle Estate, Thane- 400 604. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bharat Gandhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sunny Kachhwaha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/07/2023 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Bharat GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha
Section 143(3)

there was already delay of more than 180 days. The assessee immediately filed appeal before the CIT(A) along with application for condonation of delay. Along with the application the assessee has also field certificate from the Chartered Accountant Shri Hitesh Mehta stating that the delay in filing of appeal ... inordinate delay of 189 days in filing of the appeal before CIT(A). He submitted that the reason given in application for condonation of delay before CIT(A) and the reason given in certificate by the Chartered Accountant for not filing appeal within time are different. Hence, no reliance

Novaerum Automotive Private Ltd., U.P vs. AO Ward 18(3), Delhi

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

ITA 784/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Dharkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Singh Kothari, CIT Dr
Section 143(3)Section 263

dated 15.12.2017 passed under section 143(3). At the outset, appeal of the assessee is barred by 351 days. In the petition for condonation of delay the assessee has submitted that the physical copy of the order was not received, hence he was not aware of the passing of order

Lodha Surpemus Worli Commercial Premises Cooperative Society, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1609/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1609/मुं/2023 ("न.व 2016-17) Lodha Surpemus Worli Commercial Premises Cooperative Society, Cs.No.3/301 & 4/301, Dr.E.Moses Road, Worli Naka, Mumbai 400 018. Pan: Aaaal-8379-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Room No.245-A, North Block, New Delhi – 110 001. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri R.V. Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sunny Kachhwaha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/07/2023

For Appellant: Shri R.V. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

16/02/2023, for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The appeal is time barred by 23 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. The ld. Departmental Representative has opposed the condonation application. After examining the contents of the affidavit I am satisfied that