← 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

Visa Sales Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.O. Ward 1(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 526/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.526/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Visa Sales Pvt. Ltd........….……………………....................……….……Appellant 12, Waterloo Street, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Aadcv1161H] Vs. A.O, Ward-1(3), Kolkata……..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Narayan Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 09, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 21, 2022 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-19, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06.03.2018 Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.03.2014 Passed By Ito, Ward-1(3), Kolkata. 2. The Registry Has Informed That This Appeal Is Time Barred By 968 Days. On Going Through The Condonation Application In The Form Of Affidavit & After Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That This Delay Is Accountable For Two Reasons. Firstly, The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Is Dated 06.03.2018 & The Assessee Has Not Received The Order On Time. Secondly, The Period Of Delay Occurred On Account Of Lockdown In The State Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19. In View Of The Reasons Stated In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay & Also The Extension Of Limitation Period By Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 Of 2020 Dated 10.01.2022 By Which The Period From 15.03.2020 To 28.02.2022 Has Been Directed To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Limitation & A Further Period Of 90 Days Has Been Granted For Providing The Limitation From 01.03.2022, We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing This Appeal & Admit The Same For Adjudication.

Section 143(3)Section 68

account of lockdown in the State due to outbreak of Covid-19. In view of the reasons stated in the affidavit for condonation of delay and also the extension of limitation period by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022 by which ... purpose of limitation and a further period of 90 days has been granted for providing the limitation from 01.03.2022, we, therefore, condone the delay in filing this appeal and admit the same for adjudication. Visa Sales Pvt. Ltd I.T.A. No.526/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 3. The assessee has raised

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Dy. Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 765/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri N Arjunraj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

conditions stipulated by the Board are satisfied. Since the assessee has failed in the first condition by belatedly filing the Return of Income, condonation of delay is not available to the assessee as stipulated by the Board in the said Circular. 9.7 Considering the pandemic situation prevailed at that time ... distinguishable to that of assessee's case since in the instant case, there is a specific Circular issued by the CBDT for condonation of delay in filing Form 10-IC. When the conditions stipulated in the Board's Circular are not satisfied, condonation of delay is not available

Sri Paraswanath Digambar Jain Bhavan Management Trust, Villupuram vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 575/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.575/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sri Parswanath Digambar Jain Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Bhavan Management Trust, Income Tax/Ito, No. 22, Subramana Swami Koil St., Ward 2, Tindivanam, Villupuram 604 001. Villupuram. [Pan:Aamts2577A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 10.05.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By Two Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit, To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any 2

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 154Section 24

deduction under section 24(a) of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee since petition for condonation of delay of 307 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was not filed. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal ... before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed for an opportunity to the assessee to file petition for condonation of delay before the ld. CIT(A) to explain the reasons for the delay. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the order

Shri. Poonmaram K. Prajapati, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1953/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Poonam Vs. Ito – 19(2)(5) K.Prajapati Matrumandir, Room 81/83, Room No. 14, 4 No. 210, Tardeo, Kumbharwada, Prabhu Mumbai – 400007. Shri Rammandir Marg, Mumbai – 400004. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agmpp5641C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. P.M Gang.Ar Respondent By : Mr. B. Bagchi.Dr

For Appellant: Mr. P.M Gang.ARFor Respondent: Mr. B. Bagchi.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and filed an Poonam K. Prajapati., Mumbai. affidavit for condonation of delay and relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. We found the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable ... specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised the fallowing grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT erred in confirming the order of the assessing officer that penalty levied on our appellant

Burdwan Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Burdwan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 205/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 204 & 205/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Burdwan Cooperative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited,........................Appellant Old Court Compound, Burdwan-713101, W.B. [Pan: Aacab0468Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-1(1), Burdwan, Aayakar Bhawan, Court Compound, Burdwan-713101 Appearances By: Shri Palas Chattopadhyay, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Biswanath Das, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 139(4)Section 271BSection 44A

filed an affidavit of Shri Samir Kumar Ghosh, Chief Executive Officer of the assessee-Cooperative Society. The affidavit reads as under:- “FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING TAX AUDIT REPORT U/S 44AB AND RETURN OF INCOME Before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata; A Bench In the matter of Burdwan

Burdwan Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Burdwan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 204/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 204 & 205/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Burdwan Cooperative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited,........................Appellant Old Court Compound, Burdwan-713101, W.B. [Pan: Aacab0468Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-1(1), Burdwan, Aayakar Bhawan, Court Compound, Burdwan-713101 Appearances By: Shri Palas Chattopadhyay, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Biswanath Das, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 139(4)Section 271BSection 44A

filed an affidavit of Shri Samir Kumar Ghosh, Chief Executive Officer of the assessee-Cooperative Society. The affidavit reads as under:- “FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING TAX AUDIT REPORT U/S 44AB AND RETURN OF INCOME Before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata; A Bench In the matter of Burdwan

Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 237/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, CIT
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

ld.AR for the assessee filed a letter addressed by assessee to CBDT dated 25.11.2022, wherein petition u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing return of income for the relevant assessment year 2019-20 is filled. The relevant text of the letter reads as under ... assessee assessed to tax in PAN: AACTS4524P before ACIT (Exemptions), Chennai. We herewith enclose a petition, in triplicate, for condonation of delay in filing return of income u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act read with Circular of the CBDT (No. 9/2015 [F.No.312/22/2015-OT], dated 9th June 2015 (dealing with

Manish Kumudchandra Metha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2407/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.2407/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Manish Kumudchandra Mehta बिधम/ Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2) 7, Sudha, 2Nd Floor, Patel Compound, 14, Hanvant Bhavan, 80E, Sea Road, Napeansea Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400036. आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.2409/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Manish Kumudchandra Mehta बिधम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer- 19(2)(3) 7, Sudha, 2Nd Floor, Patel Compound, Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, Sea Road, Grant Road, Mumbai-400036. Mumbai- 400007. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpm9184G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar. Cit) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 27-07-2022 For A.Y. 2011-12 & Ay. 2013-14. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. However, Having Perused The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, We Note That The Main Grievance Of The Assessee In

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 249(2)

Ld.CIT(A) dismissing the appeal preferred by him on the ground that he has not filed along with the appeal, the application for condonation of delay; and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Since ground no. 1 of both the appeals ... appeal filed by the assessee on 16.08.2019. According to the grounds of the appeal of the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of twelve (12) days in filling the appeal, since, the original assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein

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

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 256/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟]. The appeal was accompanied by application for condonation of delay of 6.5 months in filing the appeal. As per the affidavit furnished by the Assessee explaining the aforesaid delay, the staff/consultant of the Assessee ... aforesaid reasons furnished by the Assessee, we are satisfied that the Assessee had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal and proceed to examine/adjudicate the same on merits. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeals: “1. Passing

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-1 (1), Mumbai-400026 vs. M/S Guru Nanak Vidyak Society, Mumbai-400037

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1265/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyaldy.Cit (Exemption)-1(1), 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill Dr. Gd Deshmukh Marg, (Padder Road), Mumbai- 400026. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Guru Nanak Vidyak Society, Ground Floor, Guru Tesh Bahadur Nagar, Sion Koliwada, Sion Koliwada, Mumbai-400037. Pan: Aaatg2095D ..... Respondent Appellant/Revenue By : Sh. Satyapal Kumar, Cit-Dr Respondent/Assessee By : Sh. Priyank Ghia & Kanu Chokshi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 29.03.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Condonation For Return Of Income When Only

For Appellant: Sh. Priyank Ghia & Kanu Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Satyapal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80G

1265/Mum/2022-M/s Guru Nanak Vidyak Society assessee had filed an affidavit with the office of the Charity Commissioner also along with an application for condonation of delay. 8. These facts had been conveyed to the AO also vide letter dated 05-12-2018. However, AO was satisfied. We further observed ... overcome this deficiency assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10B with the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) on 30-11-2018. Copy of the same was submitted with the office of AO also vide letter dated 05-12-2018. Ld. Commissioner

Puran Pradhan, Darjeeling vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Darjeeling

ITA 86/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 86/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Puran Pradhan, ...................................Appellant Chandra Bhawan, Bloomfield Cess Road, Dali, Darjeeling-734101, West Bengal [Pan: Aqdpp2162M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..............................Respondent Ward-3(3), Darjeeling, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, A.J.C. Bose Road, P.O. & Dist. Darjeeling, Pin-734101 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Smt. Mita Rizvi, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 250

order of Ld. C.I.T.(A), Siliguri dated 06/08/2019 passed u/s. 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 - Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sub : Petition praying condonation of delay of 507 days in filing the appeal. Your Honours, In my case, the Ld. C.I.T.(Appeals), Siliguri passed order ... such an income which is not taxable at all under the Act. Therefore when the delay is not voluntary, the provisions of condonation of delay should be liberally applied. 9) The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji

Rooprekha Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 300/KOL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT, D/R
Section 250Section 68

passed /s. 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961. I.T.A. No. 300/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Rooprekha Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. 2 Sub: Petition praying condonation of delay of 298 days in filing the appeal. Hon'ble Sirs, In this case, order /s. 250 of the Act has been passed ex parte ... Katiji & Ors. [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) held that the Courts should have a pragmatic and liberal approach while considering the petition for condonation of delay. Their Lordships have also held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should

Apurva Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1257/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 250

this delay. In other words, the assessee failed to file any medical prescription or certificate. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay. 4. Before us, what to talk of medical certificates, the assesse has not even placed on record copy of the application of condonation of delay ... satisfactory reason, we do not find any force in the contentions of the assessee. In other words, there is no justifiable reason for condoning the delay of 81 days in filing of the appeal before ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we concur with the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this appeal

Nsk Builders, Trichy vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 47/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

considered sympathetically and an opportunity may be given to this appellant. Therefore it prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 1382 days in filing the appeal as against the order dated 08.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals authority in ITA/253/16-17-CIT- ... months and after the delay occurred due Covid- 19 restrictions. When these facts were pointed out to ld.CIT-DR, he opposed the condonation of delay and stated that the assessee could not explain the delay with reasonable cause but could not controvert the contents of the affidavit or the fact

Nsk Builders, Trichy vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 46/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

considered sympathetically and an opportunity may be given to this appellant. Therefore it prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 1382 days in filing the appeal as against the order dated 08.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals authority in ITA/253/16-17-CIT- ... months and after the delay occurred due Covid- 19 restrictions. When these facts were pointed out to ld.CIT-DR, he opposed the condonation of delay and stated that the assessee could not explain the delay with reasonable cause but could not controvert the contents of the affidavit or the fact

Nsk Builders, Trichy vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 45/CHNY/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

considered sympathetically and an opportunity may be given to this appellant. Therefore it prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 1382 days in filing the appeal as against the order dated 08.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals authority in ITA/253/16-17-CIT- ... months and after the delay occurred due Covid- 19 restrictions. When these facts were pointed out to ld.CIT-DR, he opposed the condonation of delay and stated that the assessee could not explain the delay with reasonable cause but could not controvert the contents of the affidavit or the fact

ACIT Circle 3(1), Trichy vs. N.S.K.Builders, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1415/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

considered sympathetically and an opportunity may be given to this appellant. Therefore it prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 1382 days in filing the appeal as against the order dated 08.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals authority in ITA/253/16-17-CIT- ... months and after the delay occurred due Covid- 19 restrictions. When these facts were pointed out to ld.CIT-DR, he opposed the condonation of delay and stated that the assessee could not explain the delay with reasonable cause but could not controvert the contents of the affidavit or the fact

Mrunal Nilesh Desai, Thane vs. ACIT, Circle 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is party allowed with above direction

ITA 1462/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Mrunal Nilesh Desai Acit,Circle 19(2) 12/D, Cedar Co-Op Housing 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Society, Edenwoods Cross Bldg, Tardeo, Grant Road, Vs. Pokhram 2, Mumbai-400 007 Thane (W) - 400 610 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Afepd5715N Assessee By : Shri. Tanmay Phadke Revenue By : Shri. Ujjawal Chavan Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 19.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2022

For Appellant: Shri. Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri. Ujjawal Chavan SR AR
Section 144Section 147Section 148

deleted.” 02. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 1033 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating that the reason for delay is that the assessee is unaware about the order passed by the learned CIT (A) because there was change in the address ... Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 (Supreme Court). The learned Authorized Representative also took us to the affidavit as well as the petition for condonation of delay. 03. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently opposed the above condonation petition stating that the delay is not caused for valid reason. 04. We have

Shri Ramakrishnan Senthil Kumar, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle - 14, Chennai

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

ITA 754/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.754/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Ramakrishnan Senthil Kumar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of New No. 80, Old No. 25, I Avenue, Income Tax, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083. Non Corporate Circle 14, Chennai. [Pan:Ammps5348D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. Abhisek Murali, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-3, Chennai, Dated 15.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Dr. Abhisek Murali, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 263

filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the form of an affidavit, 2 I.T.A. No. 754/Chny/22 the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay, wherein, following submissions were made: “1. I am the assessee and am well acquainted with the facts of the case. 2. I state that ... neither willful nor wanton but only due to the aforesaid bonafide reasons. 6. It is therefore prayed that your good self may please condone the delay of 472 days in filing the appeal and the appeal may be taken up and disposed off on merits and thus render justice

Senthilmurugan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-2, Madurai

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

ITA 768/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Senthil Murugan Jewellers Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., 106, 107 & 108, South Income Tax, Avani Moola Street, Madurai 625 001. Corporate Circle 2, [Pan:Aajcs8546F] Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai-1, Madurai, Dated 31.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

days delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the form of an affidavit, the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay, wherein, following submissions were made: 2 I.T.A. No. 768/Chny/20 “1. That I am competent to swear to this affidavit. 2. That I am well acquainted with ... filed an affidavit dated 29.10.2022. Since, there is reasonable cause for the delay, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for condoning the delay by relying upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji