“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

Dy.Conservator of Forest Dausa, Dausa vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Alwar

In the results appeal of the

ITA 180/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh Sunil Kumar UppaddhayFor Respondent: Sh. James Kurian, (CIT) &

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

that all the appeal of the assessee is filed with a delay of 304 days. The assessee has filed the petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit of the Dy. Conservator of Forest Dausa, of all the appeals and the contentions so raised in the affidavit is reiterated ... Conservator of Forest Dausa vs. ITO, TDS 4.2 We have heard both the parties and have considered the content of the application for condonation of delay as well as the arguments of the ld. DR on the issue. Based on the materials available on record the bench noted that

Dy.Conservator of Forest Dausa, Dausa vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Alwar

In the results appeal of the

ITA 179/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh Sunil Kumar UppaddhayFor Respondent: Sh. James Kurian, (CIT) &

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

Bhanu Parkash Bansal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward2(3), Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 133/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: None (E written submission)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 5

hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 232 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee and it does not indicate as to what reason the delay took place. The relevant para of assessee ... appeal, the same may be condoned. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 253 ITR 798 held that appeal condonation of delay discretion u/s 5 of Limitation Act. In exercising discretion u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach – A case where

Narsee Lal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 415/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 234B

went to Mumbai for 10 days to attend World Congress of Accountants. In view of the above submission, the ld. AR requested to condone the delay and admit the appeal.’’ Written Submision:- 1. Assessee is an individual and resident of S/O Kishan Sahay Plot No. 24, Hanuman Vatika-A Gokulpura ... administered in an evenhanded manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the State is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. "When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side

Kiran Pabuwal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 176/JPR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 138Section 23Section 234ASection 57Section 69

vide dated 10-01-2022 is placed on record for ready reference. In view of the above submission, the ld. AR requested to condone the delay and admit the appeal.’’ Thus, the ld. AR of the assessee took the resort of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated ... prayed that the assessee is prevented by sufficient reasons in filing the appeal within due date and further prayed to condone the delay. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR objected to such delay but left the matter on the Bench to consider it as deem fit and proper

Sunita Devi, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Gurgaon

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

ITA 46/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargsumita Devi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 20/3, Dlf Ogase-3, Gurgaon, Ward-4(3), Haryana Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aknpd9287H

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. DR

Section 144

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 18.05.2022 for AY 2017-18. 2. The application of assessee seeking condonation of delay of 169 days. The assessee’s representative (AR) submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen suffering from chronic diseases like migraine, P/V bleeding etc therefore, the assessee ... appeal belatedly by 169 days therefore delay may kindly be condoned. 3. Replying to the above ld Sr. DR strongly opposed to the condonation of delay. 4. On careful consideration of the above submission I note that the assessee has filed an affidavit and medical certificate and prescription issued

Sekh Alauddin, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4(2), Gurgaon

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

ITA 104/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargsekh Alauddin, Vs. Ito, 222/5, Jacobpura, Gurgaon, Ward-4(2), Haryana Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Apwpa1035L

For Appellant: Sh. Mukul Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 02.08.2022 for AY 2012-13. 2. The application of assessee seeking condonation of delay of 107 days. 3. The assessee’s representative (AR) submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of polish and repair of old jewellery and allied products ... Tribunal therefore, delay being bonfide may kindly be condone. 4. Replying to the above, the ld Sr. DR strongly opposed to the condonation of delay. 5. On careful consideration of the submission of the assessee I am of the view that the assessee is a small professional doing business

Crystal Crop Protection Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 4(2)/6(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 626/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 37

enable it to condone the inordinate delay. Needless to say, a litigant is expected to perform his duties diligently and with commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not used as anticipated benefit. The assessee cannot escape the burden of proof for such prolonged delay. The assessee ... filed application for condonation of delay but however no valid reason whatsoever could be envisaged from such application except catastrophic situation owing to outbreak of Covid-19. Although, a reference was made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No.21 of 2022 in recognizance

Integrated Caps Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as in the admitted

ITA 3819/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 271Section 44A

That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of case and erred in to not granting the condonation of delay of 4 years and 7 months approximately in respect of filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Despite the facts that the appellant ... within 30 days of the service of assessment order. 1(b) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in to not allowing condonation of delay of 4 years and 7 months approximately without any default on the appellant company. The assessing officer has wrongly mentioned and sent the order u/s 144/143

M/S Kaipan Panmasala P Ltd, Bhopal vs. The ITO 2(3) Bhopal, Bhopal

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

ITA 408/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Kaipan Panmasala P. Ito -2(3) Ltd. Bhopal 10-A Sector-D Industrial Vs. Area Govindpura Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadck 3766 H Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.05.2023

Year 2014- 15. 2. There is a delay of 59 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the Director of the assesse company. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the notices ... filing the appeal is condoned. 4. Having considered the rival submissions and the reasons explained by the assessee in the application for condonation of delay as well as in the affidavit filed by the director of the assessee company, we find that the assessee has explained a reasonable cause

Harivadanbhai Maganlal Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(7), Surat

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

ITA 30/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50C

assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14, is barred by limitation by 15 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that NFAC/Ld CIT(A) passed impugned order ... process 15 days delay has occurred, which may be condoned. However, ld DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. We are aware of the famous judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs. Mst Khatiji

Rajvinder Kaur Balraj Singh Mahal, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

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

ITA 352/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalerajvinder Kaur Balraj Vs. Cit(A), Singh Mahal, Nfac, Groundno.6,Chawlno.82, New Delhi. Room No.19,79, Tagornagar,Vikhroli(E), Mumbai-400083. Pan/Gir No. : Ciqpm2579G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr Chintanshah & Mr.Hardikvora. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Rajendra Chandekar.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr ChintanShah &For Respondent: Mr.Rajendra Chandekar.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and filed an affidavit for Rajvinder kaur Balraj Singh Mahal, Mumbai. 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

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)., Visakhapatnam vs. Varun Ogili, Nellore

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

ITA 137/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.137/Viz/2021("नधा"रणवष"/Asst. Year:2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Varun Ogili, Tax (International Taxation), Nellore. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aakpo 5012 C C.O. No. 4/Viz/2022 (Inआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.137/Viz/2021) ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2017-18) Sri Varun Ogili, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Nellore. Income Tax (International Pan: Aakpo 5012 C Taxation), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Sunil Vamsi Krishna Kota ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 04/05/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri Sunil Vamsi Krishna KotaFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. DR brought our attention to the affidavit filed for condonation of delay, dated 18/8/2021 wherein the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam (I/c) has explained the unavoidable circumstances that prevented the Revenue to file ... reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit. Therefore, in our view this is a fit case to condone the delay and accordingly, we hereby condone the delay of 80 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal

Shri Abdul Gani Abdul Majid Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(1)(1) Now ITO 40(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3196/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2023AY 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 68

having a very small business and limited resources to handle his affairs, therefore, there was marginal delay. The ld. CIT (A) has not condoned the delay on the ground that affidavit was not notarized. Apart from that he has confirmed the order of the ld. AO in the summarily manner ... appellant received the Assessment Order dt 30/6/2019 on 26/11/2019 and filed the appeal on 9/12/2019. 6.2 Appellant filed Affidavit dt 29/11/2019 for condonation of delay. In the Affidavit for condonation of delay the appellant stated that delay was because the Assessment Order dt 30/6/2019 was received on 26/11/2019

Shri Vrajendra Jagjivandas Thakkar, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(8), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 200/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat03 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vrajendra Jagjivandas Thakkar, I.T.O., 6/2060-61, Office No. 107, Vedant Ward 2(3)(8), Vs. Building, Bholabhai Ni Sheri, Aayakar Bhawan, Mahidharpura, Surat. Majura Gate, Surat. Pan No. Aabpt 5930 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered Vrajendra Jagjivandas Thakkar Vs ITO opportunity to submit application for condonation of delay petition and passed the order on account of the late filing of appeal. 4. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty may please

Bhanwari Devi, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Alwar

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

ITA 76/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Agarwal( CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee is delayed by 11 days. The assessee has explained the delay by filing an application dated 17th February, 2023 for condonation of delay along with supporting affidavit of the assessee and requested for condonation of delay. The contents of the application for seeking condonation of delay are reproduced ... intention of Assessee to avoid the proceedings. Assessee being the old lady and not conversant with the technology, it is kindly requested to condone the delay in filing of appeal and oblige so that justice may be given to the assessee.” 3. Having considered the rival submissions as well

Bhanwari Devi, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 75/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Agarwal( CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Natthi Singh, Vill Visatipura vs. ITO, Ward-4, Bharatpur

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

ITA 117/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Smt. Madhvi Joshi , ProxyFor Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 144Section 250

registry pointed out that the assessee has filed this appeal with a delay of 223 days. The assessee in his prayer for condonation of delay prayed that the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) was received directly into the SPAM folder of the AR of the assessee. On being ... affidavit of the ld. AR is also placed on record and the same is reproduced here in below: IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY 3 Natthi Singh vs. ITO 1. Vishal Goyal, aged about 29 years S/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Goyal R/o Nawab Sahab Ka Bara, Bajariya Road

Babli, Tijara, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bhiwadi

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

ITA 420/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 420/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 Babli Shri Vijay Pal, Brampuri, Tijara, Alwar cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-Bhiwadi LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BHQPB 3714 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Vedant Agarwal (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agarwal (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

appeal it is noted the appeal filed is delayed by 3 days. The ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the petition for condonation of delay as reproduced here in below: “Sub: Application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal no ITA 420/JPR/2022 in the case of Smt Babli ... present case, we find that the assessee has explained sufficient cause of delay. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the delay in filling the appeal by the assessee 4. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that e-return was filed

Vivek Agnihotri, Mumbai vs. ITO 16 (1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4493/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalevivek Agnihotri Vs. Ito – 16(1)(5), 1505/1506, Amarnath Aayakar Bhavan, Tower, Yari Road, M.K.Road, Versova, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400061. Pan/Gir No. : Adypa6052B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ankush Kapoor.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Prcommissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 50C

submitted that there is a delay of 50 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. We found the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. Vivek Agnihotri, Mumbai. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, condone