← 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

Kaushal Ishwar Ghanshani, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2059/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha
Section 200Section 200ASection 206CSection 234Section 234E

assessee knowledge only when ITO-TDS raised demand for various years. Accordingly, assessee filed the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with the condonation of delay for seeking relief. 7. However, Ld.CIT(A) rejected the plea of the assessee and he rejected the condonation application and also observed that the assessee ... brought on record any sufficient cause neither for condonation of delay nor for the levy of penalty u/s. 234E of the Act. Therefore, he 4 ITA NOs. 2057, 2058, 2059 & 2060/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2019-20) Kaushal Ishwar Ghanshani dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on both the counts

Kaushal Ishwar Ghanshani, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2058/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha
Section 200Section 200ASection 206CSection 234Section 234E

assessee knowledge only when ITO-TDS raised demand for various years. Accordingly, assessee filed the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with the condonation of delay for seeking relief. 7. However, Ld.CIT(A) rejected the plea of the assessee and he rejected the condonation application and also observed that the assessee ... brought on record any sufficient cause neither for condonation of delay nor for the levy of penalty u/s. 234E of the Act. Therefore, he 4 ITA NOs. 2057, 2058, 2059 & 2060/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2019-20) Kaushal Ishwar Ghanshani dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on both the counts

Kaushal Ishwar Ghanshani, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2057/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha
Section 200Section 200ASection 206CSection 234Section 234E

assessee knowledge only when ITO-TDS raised demand for various years. Accordingly, assessee filed the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with the condonation of delay for seeking relief. 7. However, Ld.CIT(A) rejected the plea of the assessee and he rejected the condonation application and also observed that the assessee ... brought on record any sufficient cause neither for condonation of delay nor for the levy of penalty u/s. 234E of the Act. Therefore, he 4 ITA NOs. 2057, 2058, 2059 & 2060/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2019-20) Kaushal Ishwar Ghanshani dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on both the counts

Sir Vithaldas Thackersey College of Home Science (Autonomous) Sndt Women'S University, Mumbai vs. ITO 25 (3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 4975/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2014-15
Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)

outset, there is a delay of 2 days in filing of appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay for the same and we are convinced with the reasons for the delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted

Shri Sambhavnath Swetamber Jain Derasar Trust, Palghar vs. CIT(A), Thane

ITA 926/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Zenith Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath, D.R
Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139Section 154

condoned automatically. In all other cases of delay in furnishing Form No. 1 OB, the assesses have to file an application for condonation of delay u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act to the Commissioner which may be condoned if the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing such ... condoned automatically. In all other cases of delay in furnishing Form No. 1 OB, the assesses have to file an application for condonation of delay u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act to the Commissioner which may be condoned if the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing such

Classic Clearing & Forwarding Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1586/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1586/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2017-18) Classic Clearing & Forwarding Private Limited. Room No.4, 1St Floor, Khaitan Chamber, 143/145, Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacc-2274-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac, Delhi. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ravinder Sindhu सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A) Dated 20/04/2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Himanshu Gandhi Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That The Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of Assessee On The Ground Of Limitation Alone. Narrating Sequence Of Events, The Ld. Authorized Representative Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu
Section 143(1)Section 154

Thus, taking in view the facts of case and the law expounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in dealing with application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee before CIT(A) is condoned. 8. The CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal has also observed

Shobha Arun Parmar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -25(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1344/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 69ASection 80G

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay in the presentation of appeal within the time prescribed in Section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act by holding that the appellant ... with in time. Further the assessee has also filed appeal against orderU/sec143(3) of the Act with a petition for condonation of delay. Whereas the CIT(A) was not satisfied with the submissions relied on the material information and observed that the appeal was not filed 4 ITANo.1343&1344/MUM/2022 Shobha

Shobha Arun Parmar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -25(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1343/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-2016
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 69ASection 80G

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay in the presentation of appeal within the time prescribed in Section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act by holding that the appellant ... with in time. Further the assessee has also filed appeal against orderU/sec143(3) of the Act with a petition for condonation of delay. Whereas the CIT(A) was not satisfied with the submissions relied on the material information and observed that the appeal was not filed 4 ITANo.1343&1344/MUM/2022 Shobha

Savitribai Phule Dattak Palaksudharit Yojna Nidhi Brihanmumbai, Mumbai vs. CPC Bangalore, Income Tax Officer 2(3), Mumbai

ITA 1214/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Athavale, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath, D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)

Form 10B was reportedly filed on 18-10-2018. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant has applied for condonation of delay of filing Form No 10B. It may be seen that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued Circulars from time to time with regard ... condonation of delay for filing Form No 10B from time to time to those who have applied for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b). However, these circulars are meant for assessees who have applied for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) and where the delay has occurred

ACIT Cent. Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Dr. D.Y.Patil Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 2294/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Cit, Cc-7(1), Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society, R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 869, E Ward, Kasaba Vawada, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kolhapur-416006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaatd 8919 M Appellant Respondent Co No. 58/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 2293/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Co No. 59/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 2294/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society, Asst. Cit, Cc-7(1), 869, E Ward, Kasaba Vawada, R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Kolhapur-416006. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaatd 8919 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. T. Shankar, Cit-Dr/Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR/Mahita Nair
Section 153C

Counsel of the assessee . The Ld. Counsel of the assessee did not object to condonation of delay of two days. We find that did not object to condonation of delay of two days. We find that did not object to condonation of delay of two days. We find that

ACIT CC 7(1), Mumbai vs. Dr. D.Y.Patil Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 2293/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Cit, Cc-7(1), Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society, R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 869, E Ward, Kasaba Vawada, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kolhapur-416006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaatd 8919 M Appellant Respondent Co No. 58/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 2293/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Co No. 59/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 2294/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society, Asst. Cit, Cc-7(1), 869, E Ward, Kasaba Vawada, R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Kolhapur-416006. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaatd 8919 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. T. Shankar, Cit-Dr/Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR/Mahita Nair
Section 153C

Counsel of the assessee . The Ld. Counsel of the assessee did not object to condonation of delay of two days. We find that did not object to condonation of delay of two days. We find that did not object to condonation of delay of two days. We find that

Smt. Nayna I. Mantri, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-30, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1982/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesmt. Nayna I. Mantri, Vs. Principal Commissioner 1601, Daffodil Tower, Of Income Tax-30, Nr. Chinchpoli Fatak, 540, 5Th Flr. Kautilya S.V. Road, Malad West, Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, Mumbai-400064 G Block, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 Pan No.Aaopm2589C Appellant Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

short “the Act”]. 2 ITA No.1982/MUM/2021.Nayna I Mantri.Mumbai 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR has submitted the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and explained the reasons due Covid-19 Pandemic and the filling was delayed and relied ... Ld.DR has no specific objections. Further we are satisfied with the reasonable cause explained for delay in filling the appeal and accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1..1 In the facts and circumstances of the case

Mr Sanjay R Tarukhia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2551/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

dismissed the present appeal filed by the assessee on merits rather dismissed the same being time barred by not condoning the delay of 5 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay for the reason that the assessee was out of town. I am of the considered ... view that when assessee has come up with a specific reason by way of filing application dismissing the application for condonation of delay on hyper technical grounds was not the intention of the legislature in making the provisions for condonation of delay. Further, in case of Land Acquisition Collector

Sa Thooyamani, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 169/CHNY/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.165-169/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08 V. Mr.S.A.Thooyamani, The Dy. Commissioner – 64, Balasundaram Road, Of Income Tax, Near Rto Office, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aagpt 1806 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.A.Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

disposed off, by this consolidated order. 2. We find that appeal filed by assessee is barred by limitation, for which, necessary petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay, has been filed. The learned counsel submitted that assessee ITA Nos.165-169/Chny/2021 Mr.SA Thooyamani :: 2 :: could not file appeal ... time allowed under the Act, therefore, delay may be condoned. Having heard both sides and considered the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that reasons given by assessee for not filing the appeal within the time allowed under the Act, comes

Sa Thooyamani, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 168/CHNY/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.165-169/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08 V. Mr.S.A.Thooyamani, The Dy. Commissioner – 64, Balasundaram Road, Of Income Tax, Near Rto Office, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aagpt 1806 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.A.Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

disposed off, by this consolidated order. 2. We find that appeal filed by assessee is barred by limitation, for which, necessary petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay, has been filed. The learned counsel submitted that assessee ITA Nos.165-169/Chny/2021 Mr.SA Thooyamani :: 2 :: could not file appeal ... time allowed under the Act, therefore, delay may be condoned. Having heard both sides and considered the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that reasons given by assessee for not filing the appeal within the time allowed under the Act, comes

Sa Thooyamani, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 167/CHNY/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.165-169/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08 V. Mr.S.A.Thooyamani, The Dy. Commissioner – 64, Balasundaram Road, Of Income Tax, Near Rto Office, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aagpt 1806 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.A.Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

disposed off, by this consolidated order. 2. We find that appeal filed by assessee is barred by limitation, for which, necessary petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay, has been filed. The learned counsel submitted that assessee ITA Nos.165-169/Chny/2021 Mr.SA Thooyamani :: 2 :: could not file appeal ... time allowed under the Act, therefore, delay may be condoned. Having heard both sides and considered the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that reasons given by assessee for not filing the appeal within the time allowed under the Act, comes

Sa Thooyamani, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 166/CHNY/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.165-169/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08 V. Mr.S.A.Thooyamani, The Dy. Commissioner – 64, Balasundaram Road, Of Income Tax, Near Rto Office, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aagpt 1806 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.A.Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

disposed off, by this consolidated order. 2. We find that appeal filed by assessee is barred by limitation, for which, necessary petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay, has been filed. The learned counsel submitted that assessee ITA Nos.165-169/Chny/2021 Mr.SA Thooyamani :: 2 :: could not file appeal ... time allowed under the Act, therefore, delay may be condoned. Having heard both sides and considered the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that reasons given by assessee for not filing the appeal within the time allowed under the Act, comes

Sa Thooyamani, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 165/CHNY/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.165-169/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08 V. Mr.S.A.Thooyamani, The Dy. Commissioner – 64, Balasundaram Road, Of Income Tax, Near Rto Office, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aagpt 1806 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.A.Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

disposed off, by this consolidated order. 2. We find that appeal filed by assessee is barred by limitation, for which, necessary petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay, has been filed. The learned counsel submitted that assessee ITA Nos.165-169/Chny/2021 Mr.SA Thooyamani :: 2 :: could not file appeal ... time allowed under the Act, therefore, delay may be condoned. Having heard both sides and considered the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that reasons given by assessee for not filing the appeal within the time allowed under the Act, comes

Kinchitkaram Dharma Samasthapaman, Chennai vs. CIT(Exemptions), Chennai

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

ITA 904/CHNY/2020[12AA]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 12ASection 143(2)

passed by CIT(Exemption) dated 09.09.2019. Then the assessee got the papers ready and filed appeal before the Tribunal only on 06.11.2020 with condonation of delay application. Therefore, according to ld.counsel, the cause is reasonable and even 8 months are falling under the exempted period by the Hon’ble Supreme ... delay of almost 80 days. Going by the reasons, we are of the view that the assessee has reasonable cause and we accordingly condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the order passed by CIT(Exemption) which is ex-parte

Arun Manivannan Namachivayam, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 494/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

submitted that the impugned order came to knowledge only when the bank account was blocked by the department. The Ld. AR pleaded for condonation of delay and submitted that the impugned order has not adjudicated the issues on merits. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal ... proceedings. However, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without addressing the issues on merits which is contrary to settled legal position. Therefore, we condone the delay and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits by way of speaking order with a direction