← 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. Immense Packaging Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Circle-12(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 678/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 678/Mum/2023 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Varun Sharma, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. P. Ahuja, Ld. DR
Section 250Section 68

Limited 2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 23 days in filing the instant appeal. The Appellant for condonation of delay cited the reason that due to not getting appropriate guidelines from Professional and Counsel for representation, the appeal filing process has got delayed ... excuse for seeking any relief in law. Therefore, we are inclined not to accept the reason given by the Appellant as sufficient for condonation of delay. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, as both the orders passed by the authorities below are ex-parte and the delay in filling

Abani Pattanayak, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 54/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack18 May 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Biswojit Sahoo, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kishore Ch. Mohanty, Sr. DR

This appeal is barred by 218 days. In this regard, ld. AR has filed an application along with an affidavit for condonation of delay, to which the ld.Sr. DR did not object. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the application of the assessee, the delay

Shri Abdul Hamid Khan, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

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

ITA 200/ASR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 May 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 144Section 250oSection 44ASection 68

assessee has filed an appeal with a delay of 8 days. The ld. AR of the assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay and clearly mentioned that the counsel was busy in filing of the audit report before the Department. So, the delay was made for 8 days

M/S Vivek Bhole Architects Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1981/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari
Section 250Section 253(3)Section 40

order and assumed that the same will be received. In view of the above, the assessee has requested to condone the delay as the same is unintentional and due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) opposed the application ... seeking condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee did not get its address updated in the PAN database nor the change in address was intimated to the learned CIT(A). 3. Having perused the affidavit, we find that the impugned order dated 05/06/2017 has been claimed to be received

Swami Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 22(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 8071/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaswami Advertising Pvt. Vs. Ito Ltd., R. P. Basia & Co., Ward – 22(4) Cas, 11, Central Market, New Delhi Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110 052 Pan No. Aapcs 2950 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.05.2023

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

ITRs, ROC and other matters, the filing of appeal was delayed for another period of 42 days .The appellant company request for the condonation of delay of 711 days in filing the said appeal. 6. The assessee craves leaves to amend/alter, modify the ground(s) of appeal and/or raise additional

Adhyakshya Lok Mela Amlikaran Sammittee, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Rajkot

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 425/RJT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy, आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 424 & 425/Rjt/2018 वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Adhyakshya Lok Mela Amlikaran Ito Sammittee Vs. Ward-1(2), A.D. Vyas & Co., Kotecha Nagar Rajkot Main Road, Opp. Kotecha Girls High School, Rajkot-360001 Pan: Aabaa0922F Assessee By : Shri D. M. Rindani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Common Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajkot Dated 24/03/2014 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In- After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010- 11. First, We Take Up Ita 424/Rjt/2018, An Appeal By The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground No 1 Order Of The Learned Cit 1 Rajkot Reopening The Assessment U/S 263 Is Totally Bad On Facts As Well On Law. Learned Cit Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Assessee Is Already Assessed U/S 143(3) By Ito 1(2) Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, D.R
Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

this effect, the affidavit was furnished by the assessee which is available on record. Thus, it was prayed by the learned AR to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 6. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that the delay is inordinate and therefore ... Shri Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 427 ITR 204 in the identical facts and circumstances has condoned the delay by observing as under: 21. The reasoning assigned by the assessee for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation to the Tribunal

Adhyakshya Lok Mela Amlikaran Sammittee, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Rajkot

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 424/RJT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy, आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 424 & 425/Rjt/2018 वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Adhyakshya Lok Mela Amlikaran Ito Sammittee Vs. Ward-1(2), A.D. Vyas & Co., Kotecha Nagar Rajkot Main Road, Opp. Kotecha Girls High School, Rajkot-360001 Pan: Aabaa0922F Assessee By : Shri D. M. Rindani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Common Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajkot Dated 24/03/2014 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In- After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010- 11. First, We Take Up Ita 424/Rjt/2018, An Appeal By The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground No 1 Order Of The Learned Cit 1 Rajkot Reopening The Assessment U/S 263 Is Totally Bad On Facts As Well On Law. Learned Cit Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Assessee Is Already Assessed U/S 143(3) By Ito 1(2) Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, D.R
Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

this effect, the affidavit was furnished by the assessee which is available on record. Thus, it was prayed by the learned AR to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 6. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that the delay is inordinate and therefore ... Shri Thunuguntla Jagan Mohan Rao v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 427 ITR 204 in the identical facts and circumstances has condoned the delay by observing as under: 21. The reasoning assigned by the assessee for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation to the Tribunal

Shri Murli Fatandas Sawlani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(3), Surat

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

ITA 215/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.215/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Hearing) Shri Murli Fatandas Sawlani, Vs. The Ito, Ward – 1(3)(3), C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate, Surat. 9Th Floor, Sopphire Ciomplex, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adeps9862M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ketan Shah, Ar & Shri Aman K. Shah, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/04/2023 17/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

assessee for AY.2013-14 is barred by limitation by one thousand eight hundred twenty five (1825) days. The Ld. Counsel submitted the petition for condonation of delay, which is reproduced below: “I, Murli Son of Fatandas Sawlani age about 63 years, residing at Sawlani Estate, Surat do hereby solemnly affirm ... filing appeal form date of acknowledge about the dismissal of appeal yet, to avoid the technical objection, the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay of 1825 days that from the date of impugned order till the filing of present appeal. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional

Shabbir Lohar, Alirajpur vs. The ITO Jhabua, Jhabua

ITA 91/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR representing the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed a written-application requesting for condonation of delay. Drawing our attention to same, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a semi-educated person; engaged in a very small business of agricultural implements/equipments ... high-pitched assessment made by revenue-authorities. With folded hands on behalf of assessee, Ld. AR made a very humble prayer to condone the delay and decide the case of merit. We confronted Ld. DR who was fair enough to leave it to the wisdom of bench. On perusal

Shri Labdhi Vikram Shashan Trust, Mumbai vs. The Ld AO-Assistant Diretor of Income Tax at Centrlaized Processing Centre-CPC, Mumbai

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

ITA 41/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Labdhi Vikram Shashan Trust 2, Ashok Bhavan, Liberty Garden, Road No. 3, Malad (W) Mumbai-400 064 Pan: Aaatl1998A ...... Appellant Vs. The Ld. A. O. Assistant Director Of Income Tax-Cpc Bangalore, Karnataka-560 100 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR
Section 10BSection 11Section 11(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Circular No. 7/2018 and F. No. 197/55/2018-ITA-I in Circular No. 30/2019 dated 17.12.2019 and delegated the powers to the Ld. CIT (E) to condone such delay in filing form No. 10B in respect of assessment year 2016-17 and 2017-18. It is observed that assessee filed an application ... condonation of delay in filing form no. 10B for the relevant assessment year before the Ld. CIT(E) vide dated 03.01.2020. 5. We have gone through the intimation issued u/s. 143(1) dated 21.08.2018, order u/s. 154 dated 10.08.2020, order of Ld. CIT(E) rejecting application for condonation of delay

Vertex Spinning Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result ground no. 1 and 2

ITA 353/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Vertex Spinning Limited 1011, 10Th Floor, Embassy Centre, 207, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan:Aabcv5617N ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(3) 573, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkari,Sr. AR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 250

same is 12.01.2018, meaning thereby a delay of 255 Days. On the issue of delay, we have gone through the application for condonation of delay and affidavit filed by the assessee. It is found that the man at the helm of affairs of the company Mr. Suresh Sharma is aged ... Spinning Ltd. on 15.01.2018. We found explanation of the assessee to be reasonable looking at his age and facts enumerated above. Secondly non-condonation of delay will deprive the assessee from a reasonable adjudication of the matter on merits, as the same will not harm the other side. Based

Shri Nitin Sehgal, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 May 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 5

days in filing the appeal. Under the circumstances, after hearing the Ld. DR, it was decided to adjudicate the issue of condonation of delay, considering the material available on record. 4. There was a delay of 781 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by the assesse ... reasons mentioned in its application dated: 01/2022 for condonation of delay which is reproduced as under: 3 I.T.A. No. 7/Asr/2022 Nitin Sehgal v. Dy.CIT 4 I.T.A. No. 7/Asr/2022 Nitin Sehgal v. Dy.CIT 5. The Ld. DR has objected to the request of the appellant for condonation of inordinate delay

Smt. Krishna Devi Educational Charitable Society, Hoshiarpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

ITA 6/ASR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

only relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) in page no. 6 which is reproduced as below: “On condonation of delay Aslo, as the appeal has been filed with a delay of close to 10 years, the condonation of delay cannot be accepted as the reasons given ... which were not complied with, the assessee cannot claim ignorance of the proceedings which were going on in his case. Hence, the condonation of delay application is rejected in this case. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mani Mandir Sewa

Smt Krishna Devi Educational Charitable Society, Hoshiarpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

ITA 5/ASR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

only relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) in page no. 6 which is reproduced as below: “On condonation of delay Aslo, as the appeal has been filed with a delay of close to 10 years, the condonation of delay cannot be accepted as the reasons given ... which were not complied with, the assessee cannot claim ignorance of the proceedings which were going on in his case. Hence, the condonation of delay application is rejected in this case. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mani Mandir Sewa

Smt. Krishna Devi Educational Charitable Society, Hosiarpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

ITA 4/ASR/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

only relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) in page no. 6 which is reproduced as below: “On condonation of delay Aslo, as the appeal has been filed with a delay of close to 10 years, the condonation of delay cannot be accepted as the reasons given ... which were not complied with, the assessee cannot claim ignorance of the proceedings which were going on in his case. Hence, the condonation of delay application is rejected in this case. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mani Mandir Sewa

Smt Krishna Devi Educational Charitable Society, Hoshiarpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

ITA 3/ASR/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2006-07

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

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

only relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) in page no. 6 which is reproduced as below: “On condonation of delay Aslo, as the appeal has been filed with a delay of close to 10 years, the condonation of delay cannot be accepted as the reasons given ... which were not complied with, the assessee cannot claim ignorance of the proceedings which were going on in his case. Hence, the condonation of delay application is rejected in this case. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mani Mandir Sewa

Smt Krishna Devi Educational Charitable Society, Hoshiarpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incoe Tax Central Circle -1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

ITA 2/ASR/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2005-06

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

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

only relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) in page no. 6 which is reproduced as below: “On condonation of delay Aslo, as the appeal has been filed with a delay of close to 10 years, the condonation of delay cannot be accepted as the reasons given ... which were not complied with, the assessee cannot claim ignorance of the proceedings which were going on in his case. Hence, the condonation of delay application is rejected in this case. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mani Mandir Sewa

Smt. Krishna Devi Educational Charitable Society, Hoshiarpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

ITA 1/ASR/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2004-05

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

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

only relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) in page no. 6 which is reproduced as below: “On condonation of delay Aslo, as the appeal has been filed with a delay of close to 10 years, the condonation of delay cannot be accepted as the reasons given ... which were not complied with, the assessee cannot claim ignorance of the proceedings which were going on in his case. Hence, the condonation of delay application is rejected in this case. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mani Mandir Sewa

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Srinagar vs. M/S Trumbo Cement Industries Private Limited, Srinagar

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

ITA 124/ASR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(1)(va)Section 250Section 36Section 43BSection 68

consent of both the parties ITA No. 123/Asr/2020 is taken as lead case. 3. The ld. DR has filed an application for condonation of delay for 53 days. Wherein, ld. DR has stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 3 OF 2020 vide

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Srinagar vs. M/S Trumbo Cement Industries Private Limited, Srinagar

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

ITA 123/ASR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(1)(va)Section 250Section 36Section 43BSection 68

consent of both the parties ITA No. 123/Asr/2020 is taken as lead case. 3. The ld. DR has filed an application for condonation of delay for 53 days. Wherein, ld. DR has stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 3 OF 2020 vide