← 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 Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur14 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.274/JPR/2021 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 M/s Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 0763 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/02/2

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: “Hon'ble Sirs, Sub: Application seeking Condonation of delay - M/s Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. -Assessment Year 2014-15 In the aforesaid context ... humbly prayed to the Hon'ble Bench to please accept the application / prayer of the 3 M/S Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. condonation of delay which is of 932-days and to please be kind enough to direct the listing of the appeal for disposal on the merits. Your kindness would

Shri Rajkot Vishashrimali Jain Samaj, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Exemption Ward-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/RJT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri G.R. Sanghavi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 288

itself has been filed beyond the prescribed due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The appellant has not furnished any order of condonation of delay in filing of return within the prescribed time limit u/s 139(1) of the Act issued by the appropriate authority. Therefore, the claim ... admittedly a delay in filing Form 10-B beyond the due prescribed date. However, we observe that the CIT(Exemptions), Ahmedabad has condoned the delay in filing Form 10-B vide order dated 11-04-2022 and copy of order has been produced for our perusal. Accordingly

Manish, Hisar vs. ITO Ward - 2, Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1896/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: 19.10.2018 & The Same Could Be Filed Only On 24.11.2020

Section 5

order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Gurgaon dated 26.07.2018 for AY 2009-10. 2. The Application of Assessee for Condonation of Delay of 780 days. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee pressing into service application dated 18.11.2020 seeking condonation of delay of 780 days submitted that ... successfully demonstrated and established sufficient cause explaining the delay of 780 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, application of assessee for condonation of delay is allowed and appeal is admitted for hearing. I.T.A.No.1896/Del/2020 7. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee does not want

Assyst International Pvt Ltd, Kochi vs. DCIT Corporate Circle1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 898/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Assyst International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, Corporate Circle -1(1) Kochi Ii/138-D, Nh -47, Muttam Thaikkattukkara P.O. Kochi 683106 Pan – Aadca0592R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. K.Parvathy Ammal, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 .03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 18.05.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2019-20. 2. There Is Delay Of ‘64’ Days In Filing This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Also An Affidavit Of Cfo Of The Assessee Company Stating, Therein, The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. On Perusal Of Reason Stating For Affidavit For Late Filing Of This Appeal, We Are View That There Is ‘Sufficient Cause’ & No Latches Can Be Attributable To The Assessee. Hence, We Condon Delay Of ‘64’ Days In Filing This Appeal & Proceed To Dispose Of The Same On Merits.

For Appellant: Ms. K.Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

assessment year is 2019-20. 2. There is delay of ‘64’ days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and also an affidavit of CFO of the assessee company stating, therein, the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. On perusal of reason

M/S Royal Indian Holdings Limited, Kochi vs. Income Tax Officer Corporate Ward 2(2), Kochi

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

ITA 878/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Paulson, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

only issue contended by the assessee through various grounds is the rejection of appeal by the CIT(A) without condoning the delay of 155 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). 3. The assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of travel agent and tour operators ... filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of about 155 days. The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) requesting for condonation of delay as under:- “"Considering the particularity of the business both the directors of the company was on Tour for weeks for all most all months

Jyoti Ahuja, Moradabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed in limine

ITA 8943/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Atiq Ahmad, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 250(6)

parte. 3. We also observe that this appeal is time barred by 17 days and there is no application/petition on record qua condonation of delay. Further the impugned order is also incomplete, as the impugned order contains 10 pages, out of which page No. 1 to 4 pertains

M/S Ben Rubbers, Ernakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Aluva

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

ITA 875/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Ben Rubbers Vs The Income Tax Officer Cheenikuzhi Ward - 1 North Mazhuvannur R.S. Road, Aluva 683101 Ernakulam Dist. 686689 Pan – Aagfb6859G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pratheesh Paul M., Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 17.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2009-10. 2. There Is A Delay Of 9 Days In Filing This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition For Condonation We Find That The Delay Cannot Be Attributed To Any Latches On The Part Of The Assessee & There Is Sufficient Cause To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Dispose Off This Appeal On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Pratheesh Paul M., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

year is 2009-10. 2. There is a delay of 9 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay. On perusal of the petition for condonation we find that the delay cannot be attributed to any latches on the part of the assessee ... there is sufficient cause to condone the delay. Therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off this appeal on merits. 3. The brief facts of the case as follows: - 2 M/s. Ben Rubbers The assessee is a firm. For AY 2009-10 return of income was filed

District Legal Services Authority, Trivandrum vs. Income Tax Officer- TDS, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

ITA 868/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

convinced that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of these appeals and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing these appeals and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. Common issues are raised in these appeals. Hence, they were heard ... receipt of the recovery notice the assessee filed appeals before the first appellate authority. Since the appeals were filed belatedly, applications for condonation of delay was also filed. The assessee had submitted written submission in support of its contentions both on condonation petitions as well as on merits

District Legal Services Authority, Trivandrum vs. Income Tax Officer - TDS, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

ITA 867/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

convinced that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of these appeals and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing these appeals and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. Common issues are raised in these appeals. Hence, they were heard ... receipt of the recovery notice the assessee filed appeals before the first appellate authority. Since the appeals were filed belatedly, applications for condonation of delay was also filed. The assessee had submitted written submission in support of its contentions both on condonation petitions as well as on merits

District Legal Services Authority, Trivandrum vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

ITA 866/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

convinced that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of these appeals and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing these appeals and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. Common issues are raised in these appeals. Hence, they were heard ... receipt of the recovery notice the assessee filed appeals before the first appellate authority. Since the appeals were filed belatedly, applications for condonation of delay was also filed. The assessee had submitted written submission in support of its contentions both on condonation petitions as well as on merits

United Bank of India (Now Merged With Pnb), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Kolkata

ITA 1903/DEL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.1903/Del/2021, A.Y. 2008-09

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 254

supported the findings of Ld. CIT(A). 4. Primarily the ground of appeal pressed is that NFAC was not justified in rejecting the condonation of delay. 5. Giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record it can be observed that the assessee is a public sector bank. The present issue ... impugned order in para no. 4.1 as follows :- “4.1 Along with the appeal in Form no. 35, a letter is filed for condonation of delay stating inter-alia as under:- "In the matter of condonation of delay under section 249(3) in presenting the appeal for assessment year

M.K Hotels & Resorts Limited, Amritsar vs. Assistant Commissione of Income Tax Circle-1, Amritsar

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

ITA 57/ASR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 245Section 250oSection 80I

Income 'fax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine by refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 2. That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has completely ignored the Affidavit of the assessee dated ... processing of return u/s 143(1). The ld. counsel further mentioned that during appeal the assessee submitted the affidavit with petition for condonation of delay which is annexed in APB page 6: “Honourable Sir/ Madam Re: Application for condonation of delay in filing appeal in case of M/s M.K Hotels

Shri Mangilal Mahanta, Keonjhar vs. ITO, Keonjhar Ward, Keonjhar

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

ITA 146/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri B.R. Panda & Satyajit Nanda, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

barred by 77 days. In this regard, an application along with medical certificate has been filed on behalf of the assessee for condonation of delay. Ld. Sr. DR has not objection to condone the delay. In view of the above, the delay of 77 days in filing the present appeal

ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Uniparts India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6056/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 92C

Registry has notified delay of 108 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant has filed an application dated 21.09.2017 seeking condonation of delay. 3. After considering rival submissions, we are of the view that delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

Shri Abdul Ahad Dar, Srinagr vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3 (5), Baramula

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

ITA 194/ASR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Ms. Sunfat Ashraf Wani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR

medical ground that the assessee has suffered chronic diabetes during that period. Although, the ld. DR has objection to the condonation of delay, however considering the short period delay in filing the appeal, we hereby condoned the delay and allow the appeal to be heard on merits

Mesers Peer Panchal Educational and Welfare Trust, Jammu and Kashmir vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Chandigarh

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

ITA 598/ASR/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 10Section 12A

grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing and all of the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 3. Condonation of delay of two days in filing the instant appeal is requested to be condoned with the support of an application which reads as under: “With ... days as prescribed under rules. The delay was not intentional. Due to this bonafide reason I request your honor to kindly condone the delay of 2 days in my case.” 3.1 Since, there was a short delay of 2 days in filing the appeal 4. The appellant filed an application

Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vijayawada vs. Aasistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 140/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.139/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2014-15) Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vs. Acit, Flat No.5, Shiridi Sai Apartments, Central Circle-1, Balasumudi, Bhimavaram. Rajahmundry. Pan: Abkpg 1138 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.140/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2017-18) Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vs. Acit, Flat No.5, Shiridi Sai Apartments, Central Circle-1, Balasumudi, Bhimavaram. Rajahmundry. Pan: Abkpg1138 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ca ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127(2)(a)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

assessee wherein the assessee explained the reasons for filing the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit and sought for condonation of delay of 81 days. The Ld Authorised Representative (Ld.AR) submitted that no proper notice was issued and served on the assessee. Further, the assessee was aware ... prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal with a delay of 81 days. Considering the same, we hereby condone the delay of 81 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case

Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 139/VIZ/2022[2041-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2041-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.139/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2014-15) Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vs. Acit, Flat No.5, Shiridi Sai Apartments, Central Circle-1, Balasumudi, Bhimavaram. Rajahmundry. Pan: Abkpg 1138 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.140/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2017-18) Sri Goluguri Nagi Reddy, Vs. Acit, Flat No.5, Shiridi Sai Apartments, Central Circle-1, Balasumudi, Bhimavaram. Rajahmundry. Pan: Abkpg1138 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ca ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127(2)(a)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

assessee wherein the assessee explained the reasons for filing the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit and sought for condonation of delay of 81 days. The Ld Authorised Representative (Ld.AR) submitted that no proper notice was issued and served on the assessee. Further, the assessee was aware ... prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal with a delay of 81 days. Considering the same, we hereby condone the delay of 81 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case

M/S Wayanad Dist. Co.Op Bank Ltd., Wayanad vs. ITO(TDS), Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

ITA 961/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jammuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

perusal of the affidavit giving reasons for late filing of the appeals we are of the view that there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing these appeals and proceed to disposed off them

M/S Wayanad Dist. Co.Op Bank Ltd., Wayanad vs. ITO(TDS), Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

ITA 960/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jammuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

perusal of the affidavit giving reasons for late filing of the appeals we are of the view that there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing these appeals and proceed to disposed off them