← 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 the Kasaragod Toddy Tappers and Shop Workers Co-Op Society Ltd, Kasargod vs. ITO Ward -1, Kasargod

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 908/COCH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A(2)(a)Section 5

forming the principal reason for dismissing the same. We say ‘dismay’ as the prime concern of any court or tribunal in condoning a delay is that the matter is, to the extent possible, heard and decided on merits. Where, however, the principal reason for the dismissal of the appeal itself ... assessee, as indeed on Smt. Devi, the ld. Sr. DR,to have brought this fact to our notice while canvassing for condonation of delay, or defending it, before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. CIT(A) examining the aspect of condonation of delay before him, found both the aspects required

Shri Rama Mepa Odedara, Porbandar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Porbandar

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 67/RJT/2019[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Us, The Counsel For The Assessee Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay & Argued That The Reason For Delay In Filing Appeal Before Itat Was That The Assessee Was Suffering From Spinal Injury & Was Advised Complete Bed Rest By The Doctors. In Support Of The Above Contention, The Assessee Also Filed Medical Certificate With Respect To The Injury Suffered

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 69A

amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeals. Total tax effect (see note below) Rs. 18,28,550/- Condonation of Delay: 3. At the outset, we observe that the appeal is time-barred by 126 days. Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted an application ... condonation of delay, and argued that the reason for delay in filing appeal before ITAT was that the assessee was suffering from spinal injury and was advised complete bed rest by the doctors. In support of the above contention, the assessee also filed medical certificate with respect to the injury

Nareshbhai Vijaybhai Gamit, Tapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Bardoli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 340/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Nareshbhai Vijaybhai Gamit, I.T.O., Shop No. 37, Riddhi Siddhi Palace, Ward-1, Vs. Old Bus Stand, Vyara, Bardoli. District- Tapi-394650. Pan No. Bqbpg 4350 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 234BSection 254(1)Section 270A

only on 22/11/2022. Thus, there is delay of 59 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The assesse has filed his affidavit for condonation of delay. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was delivered in Spam folder ... assessee is casual in taking timely action for filing appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has cooked up his own story for seeking condonation of delay. 4. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and find that the impugned order was passed

Shri Nathalal D. Dadhania, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Navsari

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

ITA 29/SRT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Shri Nathalal D. Dadhania, I.T.O., At & Post Donja, Tal: Chikhli, Ward-4, Vs. Navsari-396521. Navsari. Pan No. Anppd 2418 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

appeal is filed only on 11/02/2022. Thus, there is a delay of 1237 days in filing appeal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay which is supported by affidavit of assessee. In the application, the assessee has stated that the assessee is educated only up to 4th standard ... going to be benefitted in filing appeal belatedly rather there is a chance that appeal may be dismissed in limine and not condoning the delay in filing appeal. 3 Shri Nathalal D. Dadhania Vs ITO 4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative

Madanlal Mohanlal Sakhala, Mumbai vs. Addl. Comm of Income Tax Circle-24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 308/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Iswar RathiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)

which is not taxable, since it was on sale of agricultural land which is exempt from tax as well as for not condoning the delay in filing the appeal of more than seven hundred ninety (790) days. 3. Brief facts are that the assesse is an individual who had filed ... land will not attract tax. Realizing his mistake, he filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 31.03.2015 along with request for condonation of delay of 790 days. However, the Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay as well as was of the view that the ignorance

M/S. Dia Jewel, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward, 19(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1091/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1091/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2013-14) M/S.Diajewel, 303-B,113 Aman Chambers, M Karve Road, Opera House, Mumbai – 400 004. Pan: Aabfd-8623-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito,Ward 19(1)(4), Matru Mandir, Mumbai – 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2023 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)

filing of the appeal. Since, the appeal was filed within the extended period of limitation there was no requirement of filing application seeking condonation of delay. The CIT(A) without taking note of CBDT Circular dismissed the appeal of assessee in-limine holding that the appeal is time barred ... application for condonation of delay has been filed. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee has been forced into litigation by the Department and had to bear extra cost for filing appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee prayed for levy

Ramchandra Prasad Jaiswal, Cuttack vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 53/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Diganta Das, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR

withdraw the appeal with a direction that if such appeal is filed not later than 1st March, 2023 accompanied by an application for condonation of delay explain the delay on account of the present petition, it will be considered by the ITAT in accordance with law. In view of above ... assessee has filed appeal with condonation of delay. At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee reiterated the contentions stated in the condonation petition and prayed for condoning the delay. Ld Sr DR did not have any objection. We accordingly, as per the direction

Jamnadas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. DCIT, Int.Tax.Rajkot, Rajkot

ITA 73/RJT/2023[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

Jurisdictional High Court, but the same could not be done in due time. The assessee, however, has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the inability in preferring these appeals before us with the following submissions: “In connection with the above, Your Honours' above named appellant most respectfully begs ... considered opinion, in the case in hand the following should be taken into account in order to adjudicate the issue of condonation of delay: i. A liberal, pragmatic and justice oriented and non-pedantic view is required to be observed while dealing with the application for condonation of delay

Jamnadas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. DCIT, Int.Tax, Rajkot

ITA 72/RJT/2023[BP 01.04.1989 to 08.06.1999]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

Jurisdictional High Court, but the same could not be done in due time. The assessee, however, has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the inability in preferring these appeals before us with the following submissions: “In connection with the above, Your Honours' above named appellant most respectfully begs ... considered opinion, in the case in hand the following should be taken into account in order to adjudicate the issue of condonation of delay: i. A liberal, pragmatic and justice oriented and non-pedantic view is required to be observed while dealing with the application for condonation of delay

Jamndas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

ITA 216/RJT/2022[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

Jurisdictional High Court, but the same could not be done in due time. The assessee, however, has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the inability in preferring these appeals before us with the following submissions: “In connection with the above, Your Honours' above named appellant most respectfully begs ... considered opinion, in the case in hand the following should be taken into account in order to adjudicate the issue of condonation of delay: i. A liberal, pragmatic and justice oriented and non-pedantic view is required to be observed while dealing with the application for condonation of delay

Jamndas Ramjibhai Vikani, Manavadar vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

ITA 215/RJT/2022[2000-01]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Jun 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : Block Period: 1.4.89 To 8.6.1999) Shri Jamnadas R Vikani The Deputy बनाम/ 22, Kailashnagar, Mitadi Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Manavadar Tax Cirlce-1(1), Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavpv6232E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 09/06/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 28/06/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Sets Of Orders; Two Dated 16.07.2003 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Rajkot In Ita Nos. 215 & 216/Rjt/2022 & And Other Two Orders Dated 27.01.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad In Ita Nos. 72 & 73/Rjt/2023 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 132Section 158BSection 245F(2)Section 245HSection 269SSection 271D

Jurisdictional High Court, but the same could not be done in due time. The assessee, however, has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the inability in preferring these appeals before us with the following submissions: “In connection with the above, Your Honours' above named appellant most respectfully begs ... considered opinion, in the case in hand the following should be taken into account in order to adjudicate the issue of condonation of delay: i. A liberal, pragmatic and justice oriented and non-pedantic view is required to be observed while dealing with the application for condonation of delay

Navbharat Cheritable Trust, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bharuch

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

ITA 27/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi Jhagadia, Bharuch, Ward-1, Vs. Gujarat, Pin-393115 Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(10)Section 254(1)

against law and facts of the case. 2. The learned NFAC erred in holding that the appellant has not filed application for condonation of delay. But, as stated in statement of facts the learned Chartered Accountant has not filed Form 10B without the knowledge of appellant trust and left India ... audited accounts the appellant is ready to file the same by other chartered accountant and apply for filing form 10B and thereafter condonation of delay. It has been held by various judicial pronouncements that audit report can be filed at even appellate stage more particularly as held by the jurisdictional

ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur vs. M/S Rajasthan State Handloom Development Corporation Limited, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 253/JPR/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

delay of 20 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue for which the ld. DR of the Revenue filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers:- “2. In this connection, I am directed to request you to condone the delay in filing of appeal in this case ... Rajasthan State Handloom Development corporation Limited, Hath Kargha Bhawan, jaipur for A.Y. 2007-08. The brief reason for condonation of delay in filing of appeal are as under:- i) Scrutiny assessment in the case was completed by then DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur and therefore, appeal order dated 08.04.2022 was received

Krushna Prasad Mohanty, Jagatsinghpur vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 146/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.146/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Krushna Prasad Mohanty, Vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack Village : Iswarpur, Po: Balikuda, Dist : Jagatsinghpur Pan No. :Bgtpm 2823 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2023 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 23.03.2023, Passed In Din & Oder No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1050056853(1), For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Ld Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Order Of Ao Without Granting Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing To The Assessee. It Was Also Submitted That The Ld.Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee On The Ground Of Delay Of 167 Days In Filing The Appeal. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Was Caused Due To Lockdown During The Period Of Pandemic Covid-19. Accordingly, Ld. Ar Submitted That The 2 Delay May Be Condoned & The Assessee May Be Allowed One More Opportunity To Furnish All The Evidences For Disposal Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Natabar Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

delay. During the course of hearing ld. AR drew our attention to the application dated 27.06.2020 filed before the ld. CIT(A) regarding condonation of delay, wherein it has been mentioned that due to the illness of family member, the assessee could not get time and also lockdown during ... limitation or under any special laws. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has excluded the period from 15.3.2020 to 2.10.2021 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the difficulties during the pre-COVID period and the principles of reasonable approach as has been enunciated

ACIT, CC-14, New Delhi vs. Pramaditya, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1861/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs Pramaditya, Cc-14, 67, Mahaveer Nagar, 2Nd Maharani Farm, New Delhi. Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302018. Pan: Ajppp2281E Co No.29/Del/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pramaditya, Vs. Acit, 67, Mahaveer Nagar, Cc-14, 2Nd Maharani Farm, New Delhi. Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302018. Pan: Ajppp2281E

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT, DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

No.29/Del/2022 with Civil Appeal Nos. 6677-6690 of 2010 dated 07.11.2019 explained the credibility of an affidavit in the context of condonation of delay had held as under:- The appellant(s) had asserted that they had no knowledge about passing of order dated 29.12.2003, until they were confronted with ... appellant(s) on affidavit, cannot arise and for which reason, the High Court should have shown indulgence to the appellant(s) by condoning the delay in filing the concerned appeal(s). This aspect has been glossed over by the High Court. 6.3. The ld. DR vehemently argued that

Vadasada Charitable Trust, Surat vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 198/SRT/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jun 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.198/Srt/2023 (Virtual Court Hearing) Vadasada Charitable Trust Commissioner Of Income Tax C/O 701 7Th Floor Meridian Towers, (Exemption), Ahmedabad, Aayakar Vs. Ring Road, Udhna Darwaja, Surat- Bhawan, Ashram Road, 395002 Ahmedabad-380009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadtv 6713 C (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kishorbhai R Gheewala, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR

note that appeal filed by the assessee-trust is barred by limitation of twenty-three days. The assessee-trust moved a petition for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condone delay of 23 days. The contents of the petition for condonation of delay are reproduced below: “1) The Assessee ... appeal.” 3. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee-trust has not explained sufficient reasons to condone the delay. Therefore, delay should not be condoned. 4. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We have gone through the events mentioned

M/S Rudra Developers, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir- 1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 132/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254(1)

meantime, the assessee is advised to file appeal against original/initial assessment order dated 30/07/2014. The assessee file appeal belatedly and also prayed for condonation of delay. 5. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the statement of fact, and considering the prayed for condonation of delay, condoned the delay in filing

M/S Rudra Developers, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir- 1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 131/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254(1)

meantime, the assessee is advised to file appeal against original/initial assessment order dated 30/07/2014. The assessee file appeal belatedly and also prayed for condonation of delay. 5. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the statement of fact, and considering the prayed for condonation of delay, condoned the delay in filing

Sarabuild Homes Private Limited, Jalwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Alwar

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

ITA 316/JPR/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2023AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessee filed a condonation application dated 20.06.2023 praying therein as under:- “The humble assessee appellant applicant respectfully prays for the condonation of delay in the filling of Appeal before the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) for the following reason: 1. That the Id. Assessing officer passed his order ... appellant as the delay was not intentional and due to unavoidable circumstances.” That in these circumstances we request your honour's to kindly condone the delay and oblige. Affidavit in support of Application is also enclosed. 4. It is noted that the ld. CIT(A) had not condoned the delay

Calibehr Business Support Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, CPC/ Asst Comm of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalor

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2019 – 20 is partly allowed

ITA 257/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 43

submission of the assessee that the appeal against intimation u/s 143(1) is filed before CIT(A) with request in condonation of delay and therefore this appeal cannot be decided as it is appeal against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act where the computation made ... have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. In the said decision, where the issue of condonation of delay was decided, it was held that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause