“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

Ruth Mamidi, West Godavari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tadepalligudem

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.03/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mrs. Ruth Mamidi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 3-45 Ananthapalli, Ward-1, Ramalayam Veedhi, Nallajerla Tadepalligudem, Mandal, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh-534101. Andhra Pradesh – 534111. Pan: Cxmpm 2888 M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/06/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 17/07/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

drawn the attention of the Bench to the affidavit filed by the assessee wherein the explained the reasons and sought for condonation of delay and the relevant portions from the affidavit are extracted herein below: “1. …… 2. However, on 22/07/2022, assessee slipped while climbing the steps and injured herself. Immediately ... assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, in my view, it is a fit case to condone the delay and hence I hereby condone the delay of 159 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 227/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 226/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

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)

Rajesh Prajapati, Ujjain vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Ujjain

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 167/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2013-14 Shri Rajesh Prajapati, A.C.I.T., बनाम/ 15, Naliya Bakhal, Circle 2(1), Ujjain Ujjain Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Alnpp5190Q Assessee By Ms.Sonam Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80CSection 80DSection 80G

delay of about 4 years and 220 days. Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed a prayer for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit dated 01.05.2023. The said affidavit is reproduced below:- Page 2 of 12 Shri Rajesh Prajapati, Ujjain, Assessment year 2013-14 Page ... take any kind of benefit by late filing. Therefore, in such circumstances, we find that there exists sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice

Dinesh Kumar Chaurasia, Tonk vs. PCIT Central, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 102/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 5

days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: “The humble assessee most respectfully begs to submit as under: 1. That in the aforesaid matter, the ld. PCIT , Jaipur passed the impugned ... Land & Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & 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: "The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section

Mr. Mahesh C Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 838/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.838/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Mahesh C Shah बिधम/ Cit(A)-6 3Rd Floor, Room No. 10, A B-208, Ramdev Park Chsl, Vs. Chandavarkar Road, Next To Wing, Mittal Court, Sp Mukherjee Garden, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Borivali (West)-400002. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadps1521R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-06, Mumbai Dated 15.03.2019 For Ay. 2009-10. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Is A Proprietor Of A Firm Named M/S. Haresh Trading Co, Which Is Dealing With Trading Of Electrical Components. The Assessee Had Filed The Return Of Income On 30.09.2009 For Ay. 2009-10 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,09,973/-. Later, The Assessment Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act’) By Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act After Recording The Reasons. The Ao Noted That He Received Information From The Dgit(Inv.), Mumbai That During The Relevant Year, The Assessee Had Dealt With Thirteen (13) Parties Who Were Hawala Operators Which Information The Investigation Wing (Dgit) Received

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)

Section 144Section 147Section 148

filing of appeal before this Tribunal is about two (2) years. However, it is noted that assessee has filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay. A perusal of affidavit reveals that assessee is a physically handi-capped person (Disability Certificate of Polio effect 50% disability and his place

Jai Prakash Suwalka, Udaipur vs. Addl. CIT, Range-TDS, Udaipur

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

ITA 152/JODH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Section 206C(1)Section 206C(6)Section 271CSection 273B

days may kindly be condoned. 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR fairly not objected to assessee’s application for condonation of delay and prayed that Court may decide the issue as deem fit in the interest of justice. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused ... materials available on record. The Bench Noted that the assessee for condonation of delay of 02 days has merit and we concur with the submission of the assessee. Thus the delay of 02 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision

Saroj Singh, Ambikapur, Surguja vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

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

ITA 121/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 121/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Saroj Singh Mominpura, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.)-497 001 Pan: Cndps7764K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263

fairness be condoned. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) did not raise any objection to the seeking of condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee. 4. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the reasons leading to the effective delay

Santosh Kumar Gupta, Ambikapur, Surguja vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 120/RPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.120/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Santosh Kumar Gupta Kharsiya Road, Ambikapur, Sanguja (C.G.) Pan : Agjpg1262H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 44A

Satishkumar Keshavlal, Mumbai vs. ITO (It)-3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1065/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blesatish Kumar Keshavlal V. Ito (International Taxation)-3(1)(1) 18Th Floor C/O. H.C Mehta 7 Associates Air India Building, Nariman Point 26, Juhu Supreme Shopping Centre Mumbai – 400 021 Gulmohur Cross Road No. 9 Juhu, Mumbai - 400049 Pan: Auqpk4033R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69

that the present appeal is filed by the assessee with a delay of two (2) days. Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay in the interest of natural justice. Ld. DR has not raised any objection for condonation for delay and admission of appeal for adjudicating ... decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. MST. Katiju and others, [1987]167 ITR 471, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose the appeal on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are, assessee is a Non-resident and has not filed

Mehjabeen Masood Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO- Assessing Officer-16(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 766/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemehjabeenmasoodkhan, Ito, 16(1)(3), A/503, Akansha Chs Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Apartment, Yari Road, M.K.Road, Vs. Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400020. Mumbai-400061. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aibpk9930R (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr.Sumit Mantri.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Abhishek Kumar Singh.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 194JSection 250Section 44ASection 68

assessee submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal 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 the appeal

Nitin A. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, 19(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 666/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalenitin A. Shah Ito,19(2)(4) 31/32, 8Th Floor, 217, Matru Mandir, बनाम/ Giriraj Apartment, Tardeo, Grant Road, Vs. Teen Batti, Mumbai –400007. Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahps3826K (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya & Mr.TusharFor Respondent: Ms.Kavita Kaushik.DR

Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

assessee submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal 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 the appeal. The assessee

M/S Apollo Design Apparel Parks Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1339/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Apollo Design Acit Circle 6(3)(1), Apparel Parks Limited, Room No.506,5Thflr, बनाम/ 382, N.M.Joshi Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chinchpokli, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400011. Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahca0613R (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

Section 250Section 43B

circumstances of the case, and in law, there was no such delay in filing the appeal for which an application for condonation of delay was required and the appeal was required to be admitted to be decided on merit. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 2. THE ORDER BAD, ILLEGAL

Mr Bimal H. Kiri, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1337/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2011-2012

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

submitted that the appeal filed before the learned CIT (A) was delayed by 5 years and 4 months. There was no application for condonation of delay filed by assessee. The learned CIT (A) has made all the efforts to serve the notice to the assessee, even by email also, however ... assessee remain non-compliant. Thus, in absence of application for condonation of delay, the appeal of the assessee could not have been admitted by the learned CIT (A). Therefore, no infirmity can be pointed out in the order of the learned CIT (A). 014. We have carefully considered the contention

Mr Bimal H. Kiri, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1336/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2011-2012

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

Shri Sanjay Mukund Paithankar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1141/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sanjay Mukund Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Paithankar, C/O Warde & – 3(3)(1), Room No. 1631, Shah, Chartered 16Th Floor, Air India Accountants, 1201, Building, Nariman Point, Regent Chambers, J.B. Mumbai, Maharashtra Marg, Nariman Point, 400 021 Mumbai – 40021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Arwpp8732F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: None

Section 148Section 250(6)Section 56Section 69A

assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “The Hon. CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay. The Hon. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant could not submit the required details due to circumstances beyond his control ... determine those point and record detailed finding. The decision of the ld. CIT(A) for dismissing the appeal of the assessee without condoning marginal delay of 9 days is not justified, therefore, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee on merit after providing adequate

Mickey Shrivastva, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/RPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 194C(5)Section 253Section 40a

delay may kindly be condoned and the appeal of the assessee may kindly be decided. 3. Though, the ld. Sr. DR objected to condone the delay and submitted his written submissions as under :- Sub:- Appeal filed under section 253 by the assessee in the case of Shri. Mickey Shrivastava ... days. The assessee has filed two application, with different reasons on 31-05- 2019 and thereafter again on 30- 12-2022 for condonation of delay. He has also filed an application for raising additional ground on 26-12-2022. 2. It is first hearing and no adjournment found on records

Shri Swami Vivekanand Trust, Adipur vs. The DCIT (CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 66/RJT/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(B)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

against the intimation order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. NFAC on 13.06.2020 with a delay of 1519 days. The Ld. NFAC condoned the delay in filing the appeal, however decided the appeal against the assessee on the ground that Form 10B was not filed along with the Return ... held as follows: 5. “…..the only question which falls for consideration is whether respondent committed an error in passing the order by not condoning the delay in filing Form No. 10B along with the return filed. In the decision of this Court in Sarvodaya Charitable Trust (supra) this Court

Sorthiya Ahir Gnatino Utaro, Bhavnath, Junagadh vs. The ADIT (CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 104/RJT/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

Shri B.D. Gupta appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the lower authorities and further submitted the CIT (Exemption) refused to condone the delay in Form No. 10 belatedly filed by the assessee on the ground that no reasonable cause was made out by the assessee for belatedly ... within the stipulated time. Therefore the CIT(Exemption) not satisfied with the reasons added by the assessee and rejected the condonation of delay in filing Form 10 for the Assessment Year 2019-20. Therefore the rejection of exemption made by the Assessing Officer does not require any interference

Ruia Pradeep Bajranglal HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO - WD 25(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 2110/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanruia Pradeep Ito, Ward-25(3)(3), Bajranglal Huf Kautilya Bhavan, बनाम/ Ground Floor, Hari Bkc, Bandra, Vs. Nivas, Malviya Road, Mumbai-400051. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahr0481E (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Ms.Dinkle Hariya &For Respondent: Ms.Kavita Kaushik.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

assessee submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal 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. 2 Ruia Pradeep Bajranglal HUF, Mumbai Accordingly, condone the delay