← 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deputy Director (Geology & Mining), Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS/Tcs), Raipur

ITA 212/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

appellant neither collected amount towards NMET nor go to coffers of State Government. Prayed that there was no liability and demand be cancelled.” CONDONATION OF DELAY:- 3. We find that out of the captioned appeals those filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013 ... respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the said appeals in its application seeking condonation of delay a/w. affidavit filed in support thereof, had come forth with multi-facet reasons, viz. (i) there was shuffling of the officers/staff members due to transfers during

Deputy Director (Geology & Mining), Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS/Tcs), Raipur

ITA 211/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

appellant neither collected amount towards NMET nor go to coffers of State Government. Prayed that there was no liability and demand be cancelled.” CONDONATION OF DELAY:- 3. We find that out of the captioned appeals those filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013 ... respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the said appeals in its application seeking condonation of delay a/w. affidavit filed in support thereof, had come forth with multi-facet reasons, viz. (i) there was shuffling of the officers/staff members due to transfers during

Deputy Director (Geology & Mining), Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS/Tcs), Raipur

ITA 210/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

appellant neither collected amount towards NMET nor go to coffers of State Government. Prayed that there was no liability and demand be cancelled.” CONDONATION OF DELAY:- 3. We find that out of the captioned appeals those filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013 ... respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the said appeals in its application seeking condonation of delay a/w. affidavit filed in support thereof, had come forth with multi-facet reasons, viz. (i) there was shuffling of the officers/staff members due to transfers during

Deputy Director (Geology & Mining), Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS/Tcs), Raipur

ITA 209/RPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

appellant neither collected amount towards NMET nor go to coffers of State Government. Prayed that there was no liability and demand be cancelled.” CONDONATION OF DELAY:- 3. We find that out of the captioned appeals those filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013 ... respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the said appeals in its application seeking condonation of delay a/w. affidavit filed in support thereof, had come forth with multi-facet reasons, viz. (i) there was shuffling of the officers/staff members due to transfers during

Deputy Director (Geology & Mining), Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS/Tcs), Raipur

ITA 208/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

appellant neither collected amount towards NMET nor go to coffers of State Government. Prayed that there was no liability and demand be cancelled.” CONDONATION OF DELAY:- 3. We find that out of the captioned appeals those filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013 ... respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the said appeals in its application seeking condonation of delay a/w. affidavit filed in support thereof, had come forth with multi-facet reasons, viz. (i) there was shuffling of the officers/staff members due to transfers during

Deputy Director (Geology & Mining), Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS/Tcs), Raipur

ITA 207/RPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

appellant neither collected amount towards NMET nor go to coffers of State Government. Prayed that there was no liability and demand be cancelled.” CONDONATION OF DELAY:- 3. We find that out of the captioned appeals those filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013 ... respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the said appeals in its application seeking condonation of delay a/w. affidavit filed in support thereof, had come forth with multi-facet reasons, viz. (i) there was shuffling of the officers/staff members due to transfers during

Ramchandra Mangilal Sarathe, Khandwa vs. ITO-I Khandwa, Khandwa

In the result, the appeal of the assesse for A

ITA 654/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniramchandra Mangilal Ito-1 Sarathe Khandwa Gram Mathela Vs. Khandwa

Page 2 of 5 3. There is a delay of 1003 days in filing present appeal and assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit. The assesse has explained the cause of delay in the application as under: “From: Ramchandra Mangilal Sarathe Date ... Khandwa (M.P.) PAN No. BFTPS9031N To. The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore- Bench, Aayakar Bhawan, Indore (M.P.)-452001 Sub: Application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal under section 254 of the Income Tax Act, before Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench- Indore. Relevant

ACIT, Circle- 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Akshay Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue and the C

ITA 2924/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Circle – 14(1)(1), Vs. M/S. Akshay Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, 102, Siddhivinayak Mk Road, Chsl, Tilak Nagar, Mumbai- 400020. Chembur, Mumbai-400089 Pan/Gir No. : Aahca2331A Appellant .. Respondent Cross Objection No. 53/Mum/2023 (A.Y: 2014-15) M/S. Akshay Vs. Acit, Circle – 14(1)(1), Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. Room No. 432, 4Th 102, Siddhivinayak Floor, Aayakar Chsl, Tilak Nagar, Bhavan, Chembur, Mk Road, Mumbai-400089 Mumbai- 400020. Pan/Gir No. : Aahca2331A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Ajaysingh&Mr.Yogeshjoijode,Ar Revenue By : Mr.Manoj Kumar Singh,Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.AjaySingh&Mr.YogeshJoijode,ARFor Respondent: Mr.Manoj Kumar Singh,DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 43C

there is a delay of 150 days in filing the cross objections (CO) before the Hon’ble Tribunal and 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, condone the delay and admit

Manoranjan Lenka, Balanga vs. PCIT-1, Bhubanewsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.34/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Manoranjan Lenka, Vs Pr.Cit-1, Bhubaneswar At/Po: Balanga, Dist : Puri, Odisha-752105 Pan No. :Addpl 7206 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Chitrasen Parida, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Pr.Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1, Dated 31.12.2021, Passed In Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/ 2021-22/1038323205(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 27 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Delay Therein. Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. In View Of The Above & Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Delay Of 27 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Heard Finally. 3. It Was The Submission By The Ld. Ar That The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 13.08.2019 & It Was A Case Of Limited Scrutiny In Respect Of Large Cash Deposits In The Bank

For Appellant: Shri Chitrasen Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Pr.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

appeal of the assessee is barred by 27 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with affidavit stating sufficient reasons for delay therein. Ld. CIT-DR did not object to condone the delay. In view of the above and considering the facts

Suman Kumar Anand, Bhopal vs. The PCIT-1, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 416/IND/2022[017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Suman Kumar Principal Cit-1, Anand, Bhopal बनाम/ 22,Lala Lajpat Rai Colony, Raisen Road, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aebpa7192N Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

assessee has calculated 289 days). Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit duly notarized praying for condonation of delay. The reason of delay averred in the affidavit is such that whenever the assessee enquired from his counsel about compliance of matter, the counsel

Orissa Diploma Engineers Service Association, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 121/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.121/Ctk/2021 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Orissa Diploma Engineers Service Vs Dcit (Cpc), Bangalore Association, At-7, Kharabela Nagar, Sri Aurobindo Marga, Bhubaneswar-751001 Pan No. :Aaato 0709 N (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 23003.2021, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2020-21/1031681333(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 173 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavit, Stating Therein That The Delay Was Occurred Due To Covid-19 Pandemic. Ld.Cit-Dr Also Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. In View Of The Above, We Condone The Delay Of 173 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Assessee & The Appeal Is Heard Finally.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, CIT-DR

appeal of the assessee is barred by 173 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with affidavit, stating therein that the delay was occurred due to Covid-19 pandemic. Ld.CIT-DR also did not object to condone the delay. In view ... above, we condone the delay of 173 days in filing the appeal by the assessee and the appeal is heard finally. 2 3. At the outset, ld.AR of the assessee requested to withdraw the present appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn. 4. In the result

Sarabjit Singh, Ambala vs. DCIT Int. Taxation Circle, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1647/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Alok Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

their reasoning to arrive at the said determination.” 3. The appeal is filed late by 206 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay. The delay was caused due to serious illness of wife of the assessee duly supported by medical records of the hospital. The delay is condoned

M/S Super Emirates Exports, Mumbai vs. ITO -Ward 28(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1314/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1312 & 1314/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2011-12 To 2012-13)

For Appellant: Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Suresh D. Gaikwad

Section 145Section 147

There was a delay in filing of both these appeal by 57 days. The assesse has filed application for condonation of delay in filing these appeals. The assessee submitted that order of the ld. CIT(A) was received by them on 21.12.2022 and the due date for filing the appeal ... days because of expiry of the mother of the active partner and because of ill health of his father, therefore, we condone the delay of 57 days in filing these appeals. “1. THE ORDER BAD, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION 1.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case

M/S Super Emirates Exports, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 28(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1312/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1312 & 1314/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2011-12 To 2012-13)

For Appellant: Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Suresh D. Gaikwad

Section 145Section 147

There was a delay in filing of both these appeal by 57 days. The assesse has filed application for condonation of delay in filing these appeals. The assessee submitted that order of the ld. CIT(A) was received by them on 21.12.2022 and the due date for filing the appeal ... days because of expiry of the mother of the active partner and because of ill health of his father, therefore, we condone the delay of 57 days in filing these appeals. “1. THE ORDER BAD, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION 1.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Soumya Tradecom Pvt Ltd (Erst. Soumya Infratech (P)Ltd.), Aligarh

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1095/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & M.Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito, Ward-24(1), New Delhi M/S Soumya Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., (Erst. Soumya Infratech (P) Ltd.,) Vs. Room No. 91, Devika Tower, Nehru Place, South Delhi, Delhi 110019 Pan Aalcs 1040 G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sunil Kuamr Gupta, Ca Revenue For : Shri Raghunath, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Cit(A)-28, New Delhi Dated 07.07.2020 For A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Have Been Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- 1. "Whether, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 4,97,14,844/- Made On Account Of Share Application Mony & Share Capital." 2. "The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Take Notice Of The Reason Recorded Wherein The Then Ao Had Mentioned Amount Of Rs. 4,43,84,8441- & While Framing Of Reason, The Ao Had Mentioned Escapement Of Income At Least Of Rs. 1,00,000/- Which Has Broader Prospective. 3. "The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That "Approved" Connotes That Competent Authority Has Read & Understood Fully The Proposal Proposed By Ao & He Is Satisfied That The Case Is Fir For Reopening Us 148 Of The I.T. Act." 4. "The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Bogus Nature Of Transactions As The Assessee Company Did Not Provide Relevant Documents Before A To Establish The Genuineness Of The Transactions So Undertaken." 5. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That Onus Of Proving Transaction As Bogus Nature On Ao Comes Only After Discharge Of Onus By Assessee By Giving All Relevant Documents Which Assessee Failed To Discharge During Assessment Proceedings. Application Of Revenue Seeking Condonation Of Delay Of 255 Days.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kuamr Gupta, CA

after discharge of Onus by assessee by giving all relevant documents which assessee failed to discharge during assessment proceedings. Application of Revenue seeking condonation of delay of 255 Days. 3. The ld. Senior DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) passed order on 07.07.2020 and appeal was filed by revenue

Mh Brothers, Raisen vs. The ITO, Raisen

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 371/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 249(2)Section 250

which hearing was fixed on 16.02.2021, 11.07.2022, 20.07.2022, 03.08.2022 and 11.08.2022 respectively but the appellant has not filed any request or reason for condonation of delay. 4.According to Section 249(2) an appeal before the CIT(A) shall be presented within 30 days of the receipt of the order sought ... Form No. 35 and the date of service is given as 18.03.2016. An appeal filed outside the time without any prayer for any condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed in limini as time barred without going into the merits of the case. Section 249(3) gives a discretion

Mh Brothers, Raisen vs. The ITO, Raisen

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 370/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 249(2)Section 250

which hearing was fixed on 16.02.2021, 11.07.2022, 20.07.2022, 03.08.2022 and 11.08.2022 respectively but the appellant has not filed any request or reason for condonation of delay. 4.According to Section 249(2) an appeal before the CIT(A) shall be presented within 30 days of the receipt of the order sought ... Form No. 35 and the date of service is given as 18.03.2016. An appeal filed outside the time without any prayer for any condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed in limini as time barred without going into the merits of the case. Section 249(3) gives a discretion

Vivek Agarwal, Rajgangpur vs. ITO Ward-1, Rourkela

In the result, Stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 33/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalwals.A. No.5/Ctk/2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vivek Agarwal, C/O. Jugal Vivek Agarwal, C/O. Jugal Vs. Ito, Ward Ito, Ward-1, Kishore Dinanat, Main Road, Kishore Dinanat, Main Road, Rourkela Rajgangpur Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aafpn 4306 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/0 /07/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

appeal may be condoned. The decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in suo moto writ petition (Civil) No.(s)3/2020 was referred for condonation of delay. P a g e 2 | 4 S.A. No.5/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 4. After hearing the submission of ld Sr DR and perusing ... delay. The judiciary is respected not for legalizing injustice on technical grounds but for removing injustice. In view of above, we condone the delay of 1175 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. Ld Sr DR supported the assessment order and the order

Seema Pandit, Mount Au vs. ITO, Ward, Mount Abu

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

ITA 160/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: The Cit(A) To Rectify The Order. The Cit(A) Has Rejected The Application U/S 154 Vide Order Dated 29.3.2019 & Served The Order On The Assessee On 19.4.2019. After Rejection Of His Application U/S 154, The Assessee Has Immediately Filed This Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Tribunal..

Section 154Section 250(6)

filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the Seema Pandi vs. ITO. assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit :- “ 1. The applicant was served appellate order dated ... appeal. 5. In this case non-interference of the Hon'ble tribunal would cause grave injustice to the assessee. Further, the condonation of delay is not going to prejudicially affect the rights and claims of the opposite party. It is therefore, humbly prayed that the matter may kindly be considered

Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 97/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

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

Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam wherein the Ld. ACIT explained the reasons for belated filing of the appeals and sought for condonation of delay. The relevant portion from the Affidavit filed by the Ld. ACIT is extracted herein below for reference: “1….. 2….. 3…. 4. I submit that copy ... filing the appeal. It is submitted that there are good grounds for condonation in the appeal. It is therefore just and necessary to condone the delay in filing the above appeal. 6 …….” 4. On perusal of the contents of the Affidavit filed by the Ld. ACIT explaining the reasons