← 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

Rashmi Jain, Imliwala Phatak, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2) Jaipur, Ward 6 (2) Jaipur

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

ITA 134/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Then Cit(A)-2, Jaipur With In 2 Smt. Rashmi Jain Vs Ito,Ward 6(2), Jaipur Prescribed Limitation U/S 249(2) Of The I.T. Act I.E. 30 Days From The Service Of The Impugned Assessment Order (Ii) That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Reproducing The Reason For Delay By The Appellant Like ‘’Ipse Dixit’’ (Iii) That The Ld. Cit(A) Appears Erred In Applying Judicial Precedent For Dismissing The Appeal While The Precedents Are Supporting To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Batwara, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 249(2)Section 41(1)

which the order are served electronically or physically. Thus the reason furnished by the appellant in support of its request for condonation of delay cannot be treated as a valid reason for delay in filing the appeal. As such, the substantial delay on the part of the appellant in filing ... Post Master General and Others vs. Living Media India Ltd, and Another, reported in (2012) 348 ITR 7 (SC) while dealing with the condonation of delay application by the State, has observed as under- ‘’12 It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant

Mohammad Saleem, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 63(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 28/DEL/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2011-2012
For Appellant: Shri Fareed Ahmed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 147

directed against the order dated 27.04.2022 of the Ld. NFAC, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2011-12. Application of assessee seeking condonation of delay 2. The ld. assessee’s representative (AR) submitted that the appeal against order dated 27.04.2022 ought to have been filed on or before ... assessee may kindly be admitted for hearing. Assessee has also filed his affidavit supporting above facts. The ld. Senior DR opposed to the condonation of delay. 3. On careful consideration of above submissions, the assessee first of all, we note that the assessee is a less literate person earning income

Svp Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT (TDS), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 2720/DEL/2022[2020-21 (Form 27EQ/Q4)]Status: HeardITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Akhil Goyal, CA
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 250(6)Section 3(1)(b)

quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in not condoning the delay, and dismissing the appeal in gross negligence of provisions of section 3(1)(b) of the Taxation and other laws (Relaxation and amendment ... summary manner. 3. The learned authorized representative of assessee (AR) submitted that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in not condoning the delay, and dismissing the appeal in gross negligence of provisions of section 3(1)(b) of the ITA Nos. 2713 to 2720/Del/2022 Taxation and other laws

Svp Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT (TDS), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 2719/DEL/2022[2020-21 (Form 27EQ/Q3)]Status: HeardITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Akhil Goyal, CA
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 250(6)Section 3(1)(b)

quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in not condoning the delay, and dismissing the appeal in gross negligence of provisions of section 3(1)(b) of the Taxation and other laws (Relaxation and amendment ... summary manner. 3. The learned authorized representative of assessee (AR) submitted that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in not condoning the delay, and dismissing the appeal in gross negligence of provisions of section 3(1)(b) of the ITA Nos. 2713 to 2720/Del/2022 Taxation and other laws

Svp Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT (TDS), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 2718/DEL/2022[2020-21 (Form 27EQ/Q2)]Status: HeardITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Akhil Goyal, CA
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 250(6)Section 3(1)(b)

quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in not condoning the delay, and dismissing the appeal in gross negligence of provisions of section 3(1)(b) of the Taxation and other laws (Relaxation and amendment ... summary manner. 3. The learned authorized representative of assessee (AR) submitted that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in not condoning the delay, and dismissing the appeal in gross negligence of provisions of section 3(1)(b) of the ITA Nos. 2713 to 2720/Del/2022 Taxation and other laws

Svp Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT (TDS), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 2717/DEL/2022[2020-21 (Form 27EQ/01)]Status: HeardITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Akhil Goyal, CA
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 250(6)Section 3(1)(b)

quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in not condoning the delay, and dismissing the appeal in gross negligence of provisions of section 3(1)(b) of the Taxation and other laws (Relaxation and amendment ... summary manner. 3. The learned authorized representative of assessee (AR) submitted that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in not condoning the delay, and dismissing the appeal in gross negligence of provisions of section 3(1)(b) of the ITA Nos. 2713 to 2720/Del/2022 Taxation and other laws

Svp Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT (TDS), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 2716/DEL/2022[2020-21 (Form 26Q/04)]Status: HeardITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Akhil Goyal, CA
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 250(6)Section 3(1)(b)

quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in not condoning the delay, and dismissing the appeal in gross negligence of provisions of section 3(1)(b) of the Taxation and other laws (Relaxation and amendment ... summary manner. 3. The learned authorized representative of assessee (AR) submitted that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in not condoning the delay, and dismissing the appeal in gross negligence of provisions of section 3(1)(b) of the ITA Nos. 2713 to 2720/Del/2022 Taxation and other laws

Svp Industries, New Delhi vs. DCIT (TDS), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 2715/DEL/2022[2020-21 (Form 26Q/03)]Status: HeardITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Akhil Goyal, CA
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 250(6)Section 3(1)(b)

quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in not condoning the delay, and dismissing the appeal in gross negligence of provisions of section 3(1)(b) of the Taxation and other laws (Relaxation and amendment ... summary manner. 3. The learned authorized representative of assessee (AR) submitted that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in not condoning the delay, and dismissing the appeal in gross negligence of provisions of section 3(1)(b) of the ITA Nos. 2713 to 2720/Del/2022 Taxation and other laws

Svp Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT (TDS), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 2714/DEL/2022[2020-21 (Form 26Q/02)]Status: HeardITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Akhil Goyal, CA
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 250(6)Section 3(1)(b)

quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in not condoning the delay, and dismissing the appeal in gross negligence of provisions of section 3(1)(b) of the Taxation and other laws (Relaxation and amendment ... summary manner. 3. The learned authorized representative of assessee (AR) submitted that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in not condoning the delay, and dismissing the appeal in gross negligence of provisions of section 3(1)(b) of the ITA Nos. 2713 to 2720/Del/2022 Taxation and other laws

Svp Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT (TDS), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 2713/DEL/2022[2020-21 (Form 26Q/01)]Status: HeardITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Akhil Goyal, CA
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 250(6)Section 3(1)(b)

quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in not condoning the delay, and dismissing the appeal in gross negligence of provisions of section 3(1)(b) of the Taxation and other laws (Relaxation and amendment ... summary manner. 3. The learned authorized representative of assessee (AR) submitted that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in not condoning the delay, and dismissing the appeal in gross negligence of provisions of section 3(1)(b) of the ITA Nos. 2713 to 2720/Del/2022 Taxation and other laws

Shyam Bati, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-4(2), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2709/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2016-17
For Appellant: None
Section 250

appeal ex-parte qua assessee. 3. From the First Appellate Order, we note that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed prayer of condonation of delay of four days in filing appeal before him. The cause shown by the assessee, as has been noted by the ld. CIT(A) at page ... section 250 of the Act. 4. In our consider view the, although the ld. Senior DR has supported the dismissal of condonation of delay of four days, but we find that the cause shown by the assessee was beyond his control and the small delay of four days ought

DCIT, Circle 7(1), New Delhi vs. Eagle Hunter Solution Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 2150/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vagish Kumar (On behalf of assessee)For Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(assessee)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

section 2(24)(assessee) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of employee contribution towards PF/ESI. Application of assessee for condonation of delay 3. The ld. Senior DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) passed assessment order on 14.01.2020 and the date of limitation for filing appeal before ... fault or deliberate omission on the part of appellant/AO. Therefore delay may kindly be condone. 4. The ld. AR opposed to the condonation of delay. However keeping in view the limitation period extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the problems and mess created due to Covid

Dr. S A Rashid, Kashmir vs. The Assessing Officer, Kashmir

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 632/ASR/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jun 2023AY 2002-03

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

Section 144oSection 250Section 69

damage caused by reason of legal injury: Respectfully relied on the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we consider the petition for condonation of delay of 932 days. The assessee placed proper reason for delay in filing appeal. The ld. DR has not made any strong objection against ... condonation of delay. The delay for 932 days is condoned. 7. We heard the submission of revenue and relied on the documents available in the record. The assessee was not able to submit the details explanation before the ld. CIT(A). During assessment the assessee was also denied

Anil Premchand Motiramani, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Thane

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

ITA 3017/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2016-2017

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

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Pratap N. Sharma
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 54F

Delhi, [―learned CIT(A)‖], for the assessment year 2016–17. 2. The present appeal is delayed by 159 days. In his affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal, the assessee has made the following submissions:- Shri Anil Premchand Motiramani ITA no.3017/Mum./2022 ―1. That the order dated ... delay in filing the same within the statutory time limit.‖ 3. In view of the above, the assessee has requested to condone the delay as the same is unintentional. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR‖) opposed the prayer for condonation of delay and submitted that

Veena Devi, Muzaffarpur vs. Pr.CIT-1, Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/PAT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 41/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Veena Devi Pr. Cit, Patna-1 Vs Krishnapuri, Nh 28 Bhagwanpur Chowk Muzaffarpur - 842001 [Pan: Aoyps8291P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Maskara, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna-1, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 23/03/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Eighteen (18) Days In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Ld Pcit, Patna Is Wrong, Illegal, Arbitrary & Against The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Maskara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263

delay of eighteen (18) days in filing of this appeal in time before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating the reasons of delay. After perusing the same, we find that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time

Nimesh Kanubhai Topiwala - HUF, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 242/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Nimesh Kanubhai Topiwala-Huf, D.C.I.T., B-801, Shri Sarjan Palace, Nr. Nandini Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 3, Vip Road, Vesu, Surat, Surat. Gujarat-395007. Pan No. Aahhn 1784 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 154Section 250Section 254(1)Section 40

DCIT 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in not granting condonation of delay and if there is any delay, the appellant had filed affidavit to that effect. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... 31ACB of Chartered Accountant. Thus, the assessee is entitled for such deduction of professional and salary expenses. To support his submission on the condonation of delay, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions: (1) Arumugan Lakshmanan Vs ACIT (2021) 178 TR (A) 525 (Chen-Trib

Baiju Roy, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-4(2), Patna

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

ITA 13/PAT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 10(37)Section 133(6)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 45(5)Section 54BSection 54F

nature. The assessee has taken sixteen grounds. However, his grievances revolve around two-folds, namely- (a) ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in not condoning the delay and deciding the appeal on merit. (b) Whether capital gain on compensation received by the assessee for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is leviable ... barred by 150 days. The ld. 1st Appellate Authority has considered the explanation of the assessee but did not find plausible reason to condone the delay. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is dismissed without deciding the issues on merit. The ld. 1st Appellate Authority has not condoned the delay

M/S Mandsaur Sewa Bharti Samiti, Mandsaur vs. The CIT Exemption, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 72/IND/2023[00]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyanimandsaur Sewa Bharti Cit (Exemption) Samiti, Bhopal Samarpan Bhawan, बनाम/ Keshav Nagar, Behind Roadways Depot, Vs. Mandsaur

Section 12A

submitted that the assessee is a society engaged in charitable objects for the welfare of public. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit duly stamped and notarized. Drawing our attention to the said affidavit, the Ld. AR submitted that there was a change ... days should be condonedby taking a judicious view. We confronted Ld. DR who did not show any objection. Taking a judicious view, we condone the delay and admit this appeal; accordingly proceed to dispose of by this order. 4. On the merits of case, Ld. AR drew our attention

Pandurang Hari Vaidya and Company, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 22(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 278/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhpandurang Hari Vaidya Vs. Income Tax Officer & Company, 109, Ward 22(2)(5), Someshwar Niwas, Room No. 320, 3 Rd Floor, Shivaji Park Road No. 3 Piramal Chambers, Lal Dadar West, Baug, Parel, Mumbai – 400028 Mumbai - 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aahft7721Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mihirnaniwadekar Adv. & Rucha Vaidya Respondent By : Ujjawalchavhan Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 16.03.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: MihirNaniwadekar Adv. &For Respondent: UjjawalChavhan
Section 143(2)Section 271ASection 68

above Grounds of Appeal.” 2. The assessee submitted that there is delay in filing this appeal by 215 days and requested for condonation of delay. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit dated 12.06.2023 stating that order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) dated ... Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katigir & Others, Civil Appeal No. 460 of 1987 dated 19.02.1987 wherein held that sufficient cause for the purpose of condonation of delay should be interpreted with a view to due even handed justice on merit in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merit

Bhavesh Punmaji Devasi, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 1693/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R
Section 147

very outset the Ld. A.R. for the assessee contended that the present appeal is time barred by 952 days and sought to condone the delay by moving an application supported with an affidavit that the appellant Shri Bhavesh Punmaji Devasi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) had filed an appeal ... necessary papers to prefer the appeal. 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