← 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

Smt. K.R. Geetha, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2305/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

well. There is a delay of 37 days in filing the appeal for both the assessment years for which an application for condonation of delay u/s.5 of the Limitation Act, 1961 along with an affidavit dated 26/02/2022 was filed along with the appeal memo praying for such condonation of delay ... filing the appeal on time and ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 11 of 31 prayed for a lenient and compassionate view in condoning the delay of 37 days. The ld DR opposed the condonation of delay. 12. We have heard the rival submissions on the condonation of delay in fling

Shantananda Steels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1173/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

appeal has to be filed on or before 31.05.2017 but was filed only on 23.04.2019. The assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay, stating the following reasons:- 3. The Deponent submits as the addition was deleted the deponent was advised by their counsel that no further appeal is required ... this Hon'ble Tribunal with a delay of 693 days. ITA Nos.1173/Chny/2019 When these facts were confronted to ld.CIT-DR, he objected for condoning the delay. We find the cause as reasonable and hence, condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The only issue in this appeal of assessee

Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belgaum vs. CIT, Bangalore

ITA 8/BANG/2016[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri.Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : N.A. Visvesvaraya Technological University, The Commissioner Of Jnana Ganga Campus, Vs. Income-Tax (Exemptions), Belagavi. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaajv 0064 F Appellant Respondent : Shri. M.V. Seshachala, Sr. Standing Assessee By Counsel & Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, I.T.P Revenue By : Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 28/01/2021, Passed By Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court In Ita No.825/2018. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2. In The First Round Of Appeal The Assessee Raised Following Grounds Before This Tribunal Against Order Passed By The Ld.Cit(E), Dated 08/12/2015: 1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(E)] Under Section 12A Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The I-T Act), To The Extent It Is Not Retrospective In Effect, Is Arbitrary, Erroneous, Unreasonable & Opposed To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Law.

For Respondent: Shri. M.V. Seshachala, Sr. Standing
Section 10(23)(C)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(a)Section 80G

Bengal Infrastructure Development reported at 334 ITR 269 and Concorde of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi 118 ITR 507 that condonation of delay should be allowed where public interest is involved. 15.Turning to the facts of the case, we find that assessee has moved an application ... inception of the University as the delay in filing of the application was only 1 month and 25 days for which request for condonation of delay was moved. Therefore, we set aside the order of CIT and direct him to grant registration w.e.f. 01.04.1998. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee

Aadi Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT -14, Mumbai

In the result, we set aside the order of the CIT dated

ITA 1675/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aadi Industries Limited V. Pr.Cit – 14 421, 4Th Floor Room No. 426, 4Th Floor Kailash Plaza, Vallabh Baug Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Near R-Odeon Mall, Ghatkopar(E) Mumbai - 400075 Pan: Aaacj8256G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Mandar Vaidya Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

Section 143(3)Section 263

filed by the assessee with a delay of 766 days and assessee also filed an affidavit in this regard and prayed for condonation of delay. Assessee filed an affidavit dated 22.06.2022 and submitted as under: - “2. The said assessment was set aside by the Ld. Pr. CIT-14, vide ... hence this appeal came to be filed in June 2022. 8. I pray that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to condone the delay in filing the appeal and oblige.” 3. Ld. DR objected for the condonation of delay and however, he has not filed any submissions against

Bholanath Precision Engineering Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

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

ITA 1997/MUM/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2022AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nihar A. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250

getting submitted on the Department website for reasons beyond assessee’s control. Learned AR also submitted that the assessee has approached CBDT for condonation of delay in filing Form 10–IC in order to claim the beneficial rate of tax provided under section 115BAA

Chandre Gowda, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as unadmitted

ITA 29/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. Chandre Gowda, Vs. Cit (Appeals) - 7, No.655, Unnathi, 2Nd Cross, Hmt Bengaluru. Layout, R. T. Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 032. Pan : Adnpg 8890 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Balram R. Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-7, Bengaluru, Dated 12.10.2017, Relating To Assessment Year 2014- 15. 2. There Is A Delay Of About 1501 Days In Filing The Above Appeal By The Assessee. The Order Of The Cit(A) Was Passed On 12.10.2017. Appeal Before The Tribunal Has To Be Filed Within 60 Days From The Date Of Service Of The Order Of Cit(A). In Form 36, The Assessee Has Given The Date Of Service Of Communication Of The Order As 11.10.2017 Which Is Obviously Not Correct. The Correct Date As Given In The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal Is 09.12.2017 As The Date Of Service Of The Order Of The Cit(A) On The Assessee. We, Therefore, Proceed Under The Assumption That The Date Of Order Is The Date Of Service Of The Order On The Assessee. The Assessee Ought To Have Filed The Appeal Before The Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri. Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

order as 11.10.2017 which is obviously not correct. The correct date as given in the affidavit filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is 09.12.2017 as the date of service of the order of the CIT(A) on the assessee. We, therefore, proceed under ... change of Chartered Accountants. 4. Learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the plea of the assessee as contained in the affidavit for condonation of delay. Learned DR opposed the prayer of the assessee for condoning delay in filing the appeal and brought to our notice the decision

Shri. Arvind Mangilal Jain, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax, Officer, Ward-5(1)(3), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as unadmitted

ITA 180/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. Arvind Mangilal Jain, Vs. The Ito, No.11, 1St Floor, Chinnu Building, D S Ward – 5(1)(3), Lane, Chickpet, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 002. Pan : Acopj 3142 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Balram R. Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-5, Bengaluru, Dated 26.06.2018, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of About 582 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Assessee. It Has Been Stated In The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal That The Assessee Entrusted The Filing Of Appeal Before Cit(A) Against The Order Of Assessment Dated 22.12.2017 To Chartered Accountant (Ca) With Instructions To File The Appeal. The Affidavit Is Silent With Regard To The Date On Which The Papers Were Handed Over To The Ca. It Appears That The Assessee Did Not Contact The Ca Till The Ao Contacted The Assessee In January 2022 For Recovery Of Outstanding Demand & When He Informed That The Assessee That The Assessee’S Appeal Before Cit(A) Has Been Dismissed. Thereafter The Page 2 Of 3

For Appellant: Shri. Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

about 582 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. It has been stated in the affidavit filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal that the assessee entrusted the filing of appeal before CIT(A) against the Order of Assessment dated 22.12.2017 to Chartered Accountant ... came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the assessee contacted the present Advocate in February 2022 and filed the appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. It is in these circumstances that the assessee has prayed that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. 3. Learned Counsel

M/S. Dream Logistics Company Private Limited, Uttar Kannada vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1001/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, AddlCIT-DR
Section 234Section 249Section 32Section 36Section 37

circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT[A] erred in law and on facts in dismissing the first appeal by refusing to condone the delay of 68 days due to non-filing of the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income ... costs.” 3. At the very outset, we noticed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) without condoning the delay of 68 days. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee has not filed petition for condonation of delay (though the assessee had filed written

Kundha Agri Farms, Chennai vs. ITO Ncw 1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 110/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.110/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Kundha Agri Farms, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No. 18, Old No. 80, Bazulla Road, Non Corporate Ward I(4), T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Aajfk7950J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 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) 2, Chennai Dated 25.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Was Delayed By 694 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. Despite Defect Notice Was Issued Through Rpad, The Assessee Has Not Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Support Of An Affidavit In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. Since The Defect Was Not Rectified, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Not 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Despite defect notice was issued through RPAD, the assessee has not filed petition for condonation of delay in support of an affidavit in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Since the defect was not rectified, the appeal filed by the assessee

M/S. Opg Agro Fams Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. DCIT, CC- 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 589/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal,CAFor Respondent: Shri Marudhu Pandian, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)

delay was on account of Director’s absence from head quarters and was on reasonable cause. The ld.CIT-DR, did not object for condonation of delay. As the cause seems reasonable, we condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. First, we will deal with ITA No.587/CHNY/2020

M/S. Opg Agro Fams Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. DCIT, CC- 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 588/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal,CAFor Respondent: Shri Marudhu Pandian, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)

delay was on account of Director’s absence from head quarters and was on reasonable cause. The ld.CIT-DR, did not object for condonation of delay. As the cause seems reasonable, we condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. First, we will deal with ITA No.587/CHNY/2020

M/S. Opg Agro Fams Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. DCIT, CC- 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 587/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal,CAFor Respondent: Shri Marudhu Pandian, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)

delay was on account of Director’s absence from head quarters and was on reasonable cause. The ld.CIT-DR, did not object for condonation of delay. As the cause seems reasonable, we condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. First, we will deal with ITA No.587/CHNY/2020

Fourrts (India Labs Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT (OSD) Corporate Circle 2, Chennai

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

ITA 1176/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1176/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Fourrts (India) Labs Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.1, Annai Indira Nagar, V. Income Tax (Osd), Okkiyam Thoraipakkam, Corporate Range -2, Chennai – 600 097. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacf-0467-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.S. Devaguru, Advocate : Shri. P.M. Senthil Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. R.S. Devaguru, Advocate
Section 115Section 32Section 35(2)

assessee submitted that the appeals filed by the assessee is time barred by 06 days for which necessary petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay has been filed. The AR further submitted that the assessee could not file appeals within the time allowed ... interest of advancement of substantial justice. :-4-: ITA. No:1176 /Chny/2018 4. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposing condonation of delay petition filed by the assessee submitted that the reasons given by the assessee do not come within the ambit of reasonable and bonafide reasons, which

Sanjay Gupta, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal under consideration is held to be INVALID

ITA 1097/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Kinjal BhuttaFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 249Section 250

treated as DISMISSED.” 7. Thereafter, the assessee immediately filed the appeal electronically on 05/05/2022 before the learned CIT(A) and also prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal through online process. In this regard, learned AR placed on record the e-filing acknowledgement along with Form

Hasu Exporters, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax-17, Mumbai

In the result, it is held that the initiation of proceedings under section 263 on the issue of LTCG is bad and uncalled for

ITA 1441/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalehasu Exporters Vs. Pr. Cit-17 Room No. 39, 1St Floor Room No. 120, 1St 94, Kansara Chawl, Floor, Kautilya Kalbadevi Road, Bhavan, C-41 To 43, G Mumbai – 400002. Block, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfh7119J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Himanshu Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Smt.Madhumalti Ghosh.Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pr.Cit) -17, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri. Himanshu Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Madhumalti Ghosh.CIT DR
Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and filed an affidavit for condonation of delay and relied on the Hasu Exporters, Mumbai. 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 following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT erred in passing the order under section 263 of the Act, in spite of the fact that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial

Diastar Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 8(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5313/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi D Hande
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 92C

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). 2. The appeal was filed with the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the ground that the Director of the Appellant-Company at the relevant time was outside India and ITA. No. 5313/Mum/2016 Assessment Year

Sucramp Pharmaceuticals Pvt Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle IV(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3141/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3141/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Sucramp Pharmaceuticals The Assistant Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax, H 37-J, Manthoppu Colony, Company Circle Iv(4), 8Th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 083. [Pan: Aakcs-2196-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. G. Anish, Advocate For अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By T. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80I

hearing, we find that the appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 1751 days. The assessee neither filed petition for condonation of delay nor explained reasons for not filing appeal in time. Therefore, we presume that there is no valid reason for the assessee to file appeal with

Jayesh Vinodkumar Tanna, Mumbai vs. ACIT -CC-5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2197/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)

filed by the assessee with a delay of 743 days and assessee also filed an affidavit in this regard and prayed for condonation of delay. Assessee filed an affidavit dated 28.04.2022 and submitted as under: - “That in my case as an individual assessment for AY 2012-13 was completed ... under wrong impression, I depose this statement to support my application for delay in filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai to condone the delay and hear my appeal on merit.” 4. Ld. AR of the assessee also filed medical records and prayed for condonation of delay

Jayesh Vinodkumar Tanna, Mumbai vs. ACIT -CC-5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2196/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)

filed by the assessee with a delay of 743 days and assessee also filed an affidavit in this regard and prayed for condonation of delay. Assessee filed an affidavit dated 28.04.2022 and submitted as under: - “That in my case as an individual assessment for AY 2012-13 was completed ... under wrong impression, I depose this statement to support my application for delay in filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai to condone the delay and hear my appeal on merit.” 4. Ld. AR of the assessee also filed medical records and prayed for condonation of delay

Jayesh Vinodkumar Tanna, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC-5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2195/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)

filed by the assessee with a delay of 743 days and assessee also filed an affidavit in this regard and prayed for condonation of delay. Assessee filed an affidavit dated 28.04.2022 and submitted as under: - “That in my case as an individual assessment for AY 2012-13 was completed ... under wrong impression, I depose this statement to support my application for delay in filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai to condone the delay and hear my appeal on merit.” 4. Ld. AR of the assessee also filed medical records and prayed for condonation of delay