← 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

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Sri M.Palanisamy, Coimbatore

ITA 1186/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

limitation by 3 days. Both the ld.Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue and the ld.Counsel for the assessee have not objected for condonation of delay, as the delay is of short period. The 5 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others Revenue and assessee

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Sri M.Palanisamy, Coimbatore

ITA 1185/CHNY/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

limitation by 3 days. Both the ld.Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue and the ld.Counsel for the assessee have not objected for condonation of delay, as the delay is of short period. The 5 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others Revenue and assessee

M.Palanisamy, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

ITA 1044/CHNY/2011[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

limitation by 3 days. Both the ld.Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue and the ld.Counsel for the assessee have not objected for condonation of delay, as the delay is of short period. The 5 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others Revenue and assessee

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Sri M.Palanisamy, Coimbatore

ITA 1583/CHNY/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

limitation by 3 days. Both the ld.Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue and the ld.Counsel for the assessee have not objected for condonation of delay, as the delay is of short period. The 5 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others Revenue and assessee

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Sri M.Palanisamy, Coimbatore

ITA 1582/CHNY/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

limitation by 3 days. Both the ld.Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue and the ld.Counsel for the assessee have not objected for condonation of delay, as the delay is of short period. The 5 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others Revenue and assessee

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A.Senthilkumar, Coimbatore

ITA 1452/CHNY/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

limitation by 3 days. Both the ld.Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue and the ld.Counsel for the assessee have not objected for condonation of delay, as the delay is of short period. The 5 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others Revenue and assessee

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A.Senthilkumar, Coimbatore

ITA 1451/CHNY/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

limitation by 3 days. Both the ld.Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue and the ld.Counsel for the assessee have not objected for condonation of delay, as the delay is of short period. The 5 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others Revenue and assessee

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A.Senthilkumar, Coimbatore

ITA 1450/CHNY/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

limitation by 3 days. Both the ld.Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue and the ld.Counsel for the assessee have not objected for condonation of delay, as the delay is of short period. The 5 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others Revenue and assessee

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A.Senthilkumar, Coimbatore

ITA 1449/CHNY/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

limitation by 3 days. Both the ld.Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue and the ld.Counsel for the assessee have not objected for condonation of delay, as the delay is of short period. The 5 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others Revenue and assessee

Samir Shantilal Somaiya, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1798/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhsamir Shantilal Somaiya Vs. Ito-2(3)(3) Fazalbhoy Building, 45- Aayakar Bhavan, 47, M.G. Road, For, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Amups9442C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 56

representatives.” 2. There was a delay in filing this appeal by 440 days. The assessee has filed the affidavit dated 26.03.2019 requesting for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It is submitted in the affidavit that order of the ld. CIT(A) was received by the assessee ... taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances we observe that there was reasonable cause for delay in filing this appeal, therefore, we condone the delay. 3. The fact in brief is that return of income declaring income of Rs.8,33,55,960/- was filed on 30.07.2013. The return

M/S Opto Circuits India Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputty Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1315/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.1315/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Opto Circuits India Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.38, Electronic City Road Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(2) V. Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Pan : Aaaco2165P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Shiva Prasad Reddy, Itp Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 06.01.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-2012. 2. There Is A Delay Of 171 Days In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit Of Managing Director Of The Assessee, Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. On Perusal Of The Reasons Stated, We Find That The Assessee By Mistake Had Filed An Appeal Before The Cit(A) (As Against The Final Assessment Order) & On Realizing The Mistake, Immediately The Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Tribunal. We Find There Is A Reasonable Cause For Belated Filing

For Appellant: Sri.Shiva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 92C

There is a delay of 171 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit of Managing Director of the assessee, stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. On perusal of the reasons stated ... filing 2 IT(TP)A No.1315/Bang/2017. M/s.Opto Circuits India Limited. of this appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceeded to dispose of the matter on merits. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows

M/S Mechnotek Industries, Trichy vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Trichy

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

ITA 967/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)

Appellate Tribunal on 9.12.2020. I state that the mistake committed in the office of the Chartered Accountant would constitute reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing the captioned appeal.” Rest of the period falls under the Covid-19 pandemic exemption and hence, he requested that the delay be condoned ... When this was pointed out to ld. Senior DR, he objected for the condonation of delay that the reasons stated for the delay of 80 days is not convincing. 2.1 After hearing rival contentions and going through the reasons stated, we are of the view that for the first

The Salem District Cricket Association, Salem vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 740/CHNY/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2016-2017

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(1)

transpires that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by learned first appellate authority vide order dated 05.08.2022 for want of condonation of delay of 433 days since the assessee could not establish sufficient cause for late filing of the appeal. The return of income as filed ... submitted that part of delay was attributable to lockdown situation arising out of Covid-19 Pandemic and accordingly, Ld. AR pleaded for condonation of delay which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. 3. Considering the fact that part of delay was attributable to lockdown situation arising out of Covid

Laxmina Ventures, Vashi vs. Pr. CIT -28, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1254/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalelaxmina Ventures, Vs. Principal Commissioner 103, Vardhmanmarket, Of Income Tax,3 Rd Floor, Opp: Andhra Bank I T Department, Vashi Sector-17,Vashi, Railway Station, Navi Mumbai-400703 Commercial Complex, Navimumbai-400703 Pan No.Aaefl3415G Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43C

hereinafter in short “the Act”). 2 ITA No.1254/MUM/2022 .Laxmina Ventures. Mumbai At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR has submitted the application for condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and explained that the filling was delayed and relied on the decision ... 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 following grounds of appeal. 1. That the impugned order dated 18/03/2020 issued

Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Chennai vs. Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir 3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 72/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.71 & 72/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Corporate Office, Guna Complex, Income Tax, 433, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. Sandhyaarti, T., F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 14.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 130 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. By Filing A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 & The Same Is Well Within The Extended Period

For Appellant: Mrs. Sandhyaarti, T., F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 37

appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 130 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. By filing a petition for condonation of delay in the form of an Affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay due to outbreak of Covid-19 and the same is well within ... Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain provisions) Act, 2020 dated 29.09.2020, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed for condoning the delay and admitting the appeals for adjudication. The ld. DR has not seriously object to the submissions of the ld. Counsel. Since the assessee

Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Chennai vs. Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir 3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 71/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.71 & 72/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Corporate Office, Guna Complex, Income Tax, 433, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. Sandhyaarti, T., F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 14.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 130 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. By Filing A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 & The Same Is Well Within The Extended Period

For Appellant: Mrs. Sandhyaarti, T., F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 37

appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 130 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. By filing a petition for condonation of delay in the form of an Affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay due to outbreak of Covid-19 and the same is well within ... Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain provisions) Act, 2020 dated 29.09.2020, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed for condoning the delay and admitting the appeals for adjudication. The ld. DR has not seriously object to the submissions of the ld. Counsel. Since the assessee

C.Jebamani, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 11(4), Chennai

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

ITA 157/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.157/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Mr.C.Jebamani, The Income Tax Officer, 62/1, Peters Road, Non-Corporate Ward-11(4), Royapettah, Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Acnpj 6400 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.T.Vasudevan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.M.Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

For Respondent: Mr.M.Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

relevant to assessment year 2015-16. 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 could not file appeal within the time allowed under ... therefore, delay may be condoned. Having heard both sides and considered the petition filed Mr.C.Jebamani :: 2 :: 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 under reasonable cause

ACIT, Circle-1, Vellore vs. M/S. Brownland Properties, Vellore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 3315/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3315/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. The Asst. Commissioner- M/S.Brownland Properties, Of Income Tax, No.84/2, Arni Road, Circle-1, Kosapet, Vellore. Vellore. [Pan: Aajfb 7669 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T.Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 194BSection 43C

pertains to assessment year 2016-17. 2. We find that appeal filed by Revenue is barred by limitation for which necessary petition for condonation of delay explaining reasons for delay has been filed, for which, the ld.Counsel for the assessee did not raise any objection. Having heard both sides ... considered petition filed by the Revenue for condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that reasons given by Revenue for not filing the appeal within the time allowed M/s.Brownland Properties :: 2 :: under the Act comes under reasonable cause as provided under the Act for condonation of delay

Smt. Kamala, Pondicherry vs. ITO, Ward-4, Podicherry

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

ITA 2616/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2616/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt.Kamala, V. The Income Tax Officer, No.50, 4Th Cross Street, Ward-4, Anna Nagar, Nellithope, Pondicherry. Pondicherry [Pan: Brjpk 7757 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.G. Aniesh, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.N.Sanjay Gandhi, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

For Appellant: Mr.G. Aniesh, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.N.Sanjay Gandhi, Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

pertains to assessment year 2011-12. 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 could not file appeal within the time allowed under ... 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 Smt.Kamala :: 2 :: allowed under the Act, comes under reasonable cause

Madras Lamps Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2055/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2055/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Madras Lamps Private Limited Vs. The Income Tax Officer, (In Liquidation), Corporate Ward 4(1), The Office Of Official Liquidator, 29, Chennai. Corporate Bhavan, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. [Pan:Aahcm3410G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Parthasarathy, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022 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) 8, Chennai, Dated 18.01.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 91 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. By Filing A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit, The Official Liquidator Has Explained The Reasons For The Delay. By Referring To The Condonation Petition, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Prayed For Condoning The Delay Against Which, The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 91 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. By filing a petition for condonation of delay in the form of an Affidavit, the Official Liquidator has explained the reasons for the delay. By referring to the condonation petition, the ld. Counsel ... assessee has prayed for condoning the delay against which, the ld. 2 I.T.A. No.2055/Chny/18 DR has not objected to the submissions of the ld. Counsel. In view of the above, the delay is condoned. 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, by filing an application dated 14.09.2022 towards