← 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

Reliable Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by the Assessee is allowed and all the other

ITA 4811/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Ms. Sakina AmreliwalaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

submissions filed by the Assessee on 02/09/2022 vide Acknowledgment No.465938911020922. We also note that the Learned CIT(A) has rejected application seeking condonation of delay without considering the explanation offered by the Assessee in Memorandum of Appeal in Form 35 filed by the Assessee. The explanation provided has been rejected ... levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Learned CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the applications seeking condonation of delay and the appeal afresh as per law after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by the Assessee

Sh. Vijay Singh, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 4765/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2020-21 Shri Vijay Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 42-E, East Friends Enclave, Ward 34(5), Sultan Puri, New Delhi Delhi: 1100 41 Pan No. Cjsps0574A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 250

Date of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date of pronouncement: 09.01.2026 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The application for condonation of delay of 611 days in filing appeal and appeal filed by the assessee are against order dated 28.09.2023 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless

M/S Krvm Jewels, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 4763/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2017-18 M/S. Krvm Jewels, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 2739, Gali No.22, Shop No.3, Ward 51(5), First Floor, Beadon Pura, Delhi Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pin: 1100 01 Pin: 1100 55 Pan No. Aaqfk5193E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

Date of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date of pronouncement: 09.01.2026 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The application for condonation of delay of 580 days in filing appeal and appeal filed by the assessee are against order dated 18.10.2023 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)National Faceless

The Sirsa Bansivat Cooperative Labour & Construction Society Limited Sirsa, Sirsa vs. The Jao Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Sirsa, Sirsa

In the result, all the appeal of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1213/CHANDI/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1213/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Sirsa Bansivat The Jao, Cooperative & Construction बनाम Ito, Ward-1, Society Limited, Sirsa Vs. Bhadra Talagb, Mohallah Jandwala, Sirsa "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aadat3898B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Garg, Ca (Virtual Mode) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr (Virtual Mode)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Garg, CA (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

before the Tribunal. The Counsel of the Assessee has filed an application along with Affidavit on behalf of the Assessee, making prayer for condonation of delay. The affidavit of the Assessee is as under: 1213-Chd-2025 3 1213-Chd-2025 4 4. We have considered the reasons given ... Application / Affidavit and keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned therein, we are inclined to condone the delay. 1213-Chd-2025 5 5. The ld. DR did not have any objection for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed

Ashalata Kulshrestha, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle - 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1737/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

genuine. Hence, the appeal is condoned. 6. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. But the condonation of delay application is filed I.T.A No. 1737/Ahd/2025 Ashalata Kulshrestha, A.Y. 2016-17 by the assessee. Therefore, the delay of 12 days in filing the present appeal

Parantap Charitable Trust, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward- Exemption, Vadodara

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

ITA 1697/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1697/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) बनाम Parantap Charitable Trust Income Tax Officer 421, Vraj Siddhi Tower, Ward – Exemption, / Khanderao Market Char Vadodara Vs. Rasta, Rajmahal Road, Vadodara - 390001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aactp0976E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Rushin Patel, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. Dr 07/01/2026 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 O R D E R The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As “Nfac”), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 15.06.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) & Relates To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

appeal is noted to be delayed in filing by 368 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay stating that there was no default on the part of the assessee and the reason for the delay was that the assessee followed due remedy available ... that merely because the assessee mis-read the Ld.CIT(A)’s order, the same could not be construed as a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing of the present appeal. She vehemently objected to the condonation of delay. 5. I have heard both the parties and have carefully

Afsha Shamim Ahmed Khan, Nashik vs. The ITO Ward-1(3), Nashik

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

ITA 2858/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2858/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Afsha Shamim Ahmed Khan, V The Income Tax Officer, 11, Paradise Plaza, Opposite S Ward-1(3), Nashik. Alone Point, Hotel Shingada Talao, Nashik – 422001. Pan: Azmpk3812B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2010-11 Dated 20.03.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Act, Dated 11.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

No.2858/PUN/2025 [A] Delay : 1.1 There was a delay of 184 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay. We have perused the Affidavit and are convinced that there is reasonable and sufficient cause for delay. Hence, delay is condoned. Findings & Analysis

Sulbha Chakrapani Sarvade, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Sangli

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

ITA 1619/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1619/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Umesh MaliFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 147Section 44Section 69A

intention to delay the filing of the appeal. No dilatory tactics were practiced by me. My explanation in support of the condonation of delay prayer does not smack of any maladies. The delay is also not for the reason to gain time. There is no negligence on my part during ... being sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the tribunal in time, I pray the hon'ble members of the bench to condone the delay occurred in the filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication in accordance with the provisions of law.” 3. Having gone through

Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar Seti Sahakari Pathasanstha Maryadit, Pimpalgaon vs. Assessing Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A

ITA 1598/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩलसं. / Ita Nos.1596 & 1598/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Income Seti Sahakari Pathasanstha S Tax Department, Delhi. Maryadit, Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19, Both Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019 & 24.02.2021 Respectively. For The Sake Of

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

appeal.” Delay : 2. There was a delay of 151 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay. We have perused the Affidavit and are convinced that there is reasonable and sufficient cause for delay. Hence, delay is condoned. Findings & Analysis : 3. We have

Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar Seti Sahakari Pathasanstha Maryadit, Pimapalgaon vs. Assessing Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A

ITA 1596/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩलसं. / Ita Nos.1596 & 1598/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Income Seti Sahakari Pathasanstha S Tax Department, Delhi. Maryadit, Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19, Both Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019 & 24.02.2021 Respectively. For The Sake Of

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

appeal.” Delay : 2. There was a delay of 151 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay. We have perused the Affidavit and are convinced that there is reasonable and sufficient cause for delay. Hence, delay is condoned. Findings & Analysis : 3. We have

Balasubramaniam Sundaresan Rep. by L/H. Umamaheshwari Sundaresan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(6), Tambaram

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

ITA 3204/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Arjun Suresh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.C. Shivakumar, Addl.CIT

Year 2017- 18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of ‘11’ days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee

Sterling Court F Wing Co Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7122/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Director General of Income Tax are directed to admit all pending as well as new application for condonation of delay in furnishing of return of income claiming deduction under section 80P of the Act, subject to certain enquiries. It was the submission, that

Sterling Court F Wing Co -Op. Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7121/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &

For Appellant: ITA Nos. 7121, 7120 &
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Director General of Income Tax are directed to admit all pending as well as new application for condonation of delay in furnishing of return of income claiming deduction under section 80P of the Act, subject to certain enquiries. It was the submission, that

Sterling Court F Wing Co Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7120/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &

For Appellant: ITA Nos. 7121, 7120 &
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Director General of Income Tax are directed to admit all pending as well as new application for condonation of delay in furnishing of return of income claiming deduction under section 80P of the Act, subject to certain enquiries. It was the submission, that

Shri Jinnappanna Chougule Lalbahadur Credit Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Belgaum

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 276/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.274,275 & 276/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16,2017-18 & 2018-19 ) Shri Jinnappanna Chougule Vs I T O, Lalbahadur Credit Souhard National E Assessment . Sahakari Niyamit, Centre, 2471,Lalbahadur Delhi. Akkamahadevi Chowk, Shirguppi Athani, Belagavi-591242, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aagas8466F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 80P(2)(a)

delay of 129 days in filling these appeals before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the application and affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the 2 ITA. No.274.275&276/PAN/2025 Shri Jinnappanna Chougle Lalbahadur Credit Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niyamit. affidavit are reasonable ... specific objections. Accordingly, condone the delay and admit the appeals. 3. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, hence they are clubbed, heard and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, shall take up ITA No.274/PAN/2025 for A.Y.2015-16 as a lead case

Shri Jinnappanna Chougule Lalbahadur Credit Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, 2471, Lalbahadur Akkamahadevi Chowk, Shirguppi Ath vs. Income Tax Officer, Belgaum

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 275/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.274,275 & 276/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16,2017-18 & 2018-19 ) Shri Jinnappanna Chougule Vs I T O, Lalbahadur Credit Souhard National E Assessment . Sahakari Niyamit, Centre, 2471,Lalbahadur Delhi. Akkamahadevi Chowk, Shirguppi Athani, Belagavi-591242, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aagas8466F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 80P(2)(a)

delay of 129 days in filling these appeals before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the application and affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the 2 ITA. No.274.275&276/PAN/2025 Shri Jinnappanna Chougle Lalbahadur Credit Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niyamit. affidavit are reasonable ... specific objections. Accordingly, condone the delay and admit the appeals. 3. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, hence they are clubbed, heard and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, shall take up ITA No.274/PAN/2025 for A.Y.2015-16 as a lead case

Shri Jinnappanna Chougule Lalbahadur Credit Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Belgaum

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 274/PAN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.274,275 & 276/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16,2017-18 & 2018-19 ) Shri Jinnappanna Chougule Vs I T O, Lalbahadur Credit Souhard National E Assessment . Sahakari Niyamit, Centre, 2471,Lalbahadur Delhi. Akkamahadevi Chowk, Shirguppi Athani, Belagavi-591242, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aagas8466F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 80P(2)(a)

delay of 129 days in filling these appeals before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the application and affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the 2 ITA. No.274.275&276/PAN/2025 Shri Jinnappanna Chougle Lalbahadur Credit Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niyamit. affidavit are reasonable ... specific objections. Accordingly, condone the delay and admit the appeals. 3. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, hence they are clubbed, heard and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, shall take up ITA No.274/PAN/2025 for A.Y.2015-16 as a lead case

State Resource Centre, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur

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

ITA 753/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Raipur07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.752 & 753/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 State Resource Centre Deshbandhu Complex, Ramsagar Para, Raipur-492 001 Pan: Aadas0287K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 5

/2024, dated 31.01.2025, wherein it had observed that a justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner ... Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land 4. Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held

State Resource Centre, Raipur vs. ITO- Ward 1(2), Raipur

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

ITA 752/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.752 & 753/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 State Resource Centre Deshbandhu Complex, Ramsagar Para, Raipur-492 001 Pan: Aadas0287K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 5

/2024, dated 31.01.2025, wherein it had observed that a justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner ... Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land 4. Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held

Chintan Dwarkadas Chotai, Junagadh vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir 1(1), RKT, Rajkot

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

ITA 636/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 80G

circumstances of the appellant's case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to admit the appeal by refusing to condone the delay of 165 days, despite there being a reasonable and bona fide cause clearly explained by the Appellant. The order passed ... outset, that the appeal filed late by 165 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Ld.AR of the assesse submitted that the appeal was rejected due to delay in filing of the appeal. That the Ld.AR further