← 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

Lourdes Mary Arulanandam, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 199/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.200/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Shri Thomas Mulayimkal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6/8, Periyar Street, Plot No. 176, Anna Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 600 075. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Acipt2203L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.199/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Smt. Lourdes Mary Arulanandam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6/8, Periyar Street, Plot No. 176, Anna Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 600 075. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Acipt2203L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sankarlingam, Cit (Retd.) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Venkatesh, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By Different Assessees (Husband & Wife) Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai Both Dated 06.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri S. Sankarlingam, CIT (Retd.)For Respondent: Shri S. Venkatesh, Addl.CIT

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee Shri Thomas Mulayimkal in I.T.A No. 200/Chny/2022 has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The reasons for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal are as under: “8. The impugned order was received ... loss if the appeal is not admitted. The above circumstances, the Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to admit this appeal after condoning the delay.” 3. Similarly, the assessee Smt. Lourdes Marry Arulanandam in I.T..A No. 199/Chny/2022 has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing the appeal

M/S. Iconic Chandrakant Productions Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-16(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2108/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

World, S.No.14/3, 15/3, 17/2, ND Studio, Chowk Phata, Karjat, Khalapur, Raigad-410 206. 3. The Ld.DR opposed the condonation of delay. 4. Having heard the rival parties and perused the materials on record. We deem it fit to condone the delay in filing the appeal as there was ‘sufficient

Virugalpattipudhur Rimary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society, Tirupur vs. CIT-(A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 632/CHNY/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.632/Chny/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Virugalpattipudhur Primary Ward-1 Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Pollachi. Society, K, 752, Negamam, Virugalpattipudhur, Tirupur-642 120. Pan: Aaaav 9952D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

that delay may be condoned in the interest of advancement of substantial justice. 3. 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 can be considered for condonation of delay and hence, appeal filed by the assessee may be dismissed as not maintainable. 4. Having heard both the sides and considered petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay, I am of the considered view that reasons given by the assessee

Antonio Whitney Munroe, China vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 35(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1801/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleantonio Whitney Vs. Acit-Circle 35(1), Munroe,4 Th Floor, Mumbai -400020. Thomson Reuters, Piramaltowers,Corporate Park,G.K.Marg, Lower Parel, West, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No. Bahpm5057R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.K.K.Vaid,&Mr.A.K.Jawadwala.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Mr.Manoj Sinha.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-46 Mumbai Passed U/S 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Confirming The Validity Of The Assesseement Order & The Cit(A) Also Has Erred In Non Granting Of Tds Credit &Foreign Tax Paid Credit. Antonio Whitney Munroe. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Has Submitted That The Assessee Is A Resident Of China & Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Of 48 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & Explained That Due To Covid-19 Pandemic, The Filling Was Delayed & Relied On The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Respect Of Extension Of Period Of Limitation. We Find The Registry Has Issued Defect Notice To The Assessee Mentioning The Delay Of 806 Days In Filling The Appeal. On Application Of The Ratio Of Decision Of The Honble Supreme Court In Respect Of Extension Of Limitation Period, The Delay Is Restricted To 48 Days & The Ld.Dr Has No Specific Objections. Further We Are Satisfied With The Reasonable Cause Explained For Delay In Filling The Appeal & Accordingly We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.K.K.Vaid,&Mr.A.K.Jawadwala.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Mr.Manoj Sinha.DR
Section 144

time of hearing, the Ld.AR has submitted that the assessee is a resident of China and has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay of 48 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and explained that due to Covid-19 pandemic, 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. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a foreign national and employee of Thomson Reuters

Varun Gopinath, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 28(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2315/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhvarun Gopinath Vs. Ito, Ward 28(3)(1) E-2, 503, Bhimashankar Tower No. 6, Vashi Chs, Sec-19A Nerul, Railway Station Navi Mumbai – 400706 Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Albpg7827K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Darshan JakariaFor Respondent: Prabhat Kumar Gupta
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

prayed that relief be granted.” 2. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay of 577 days vide affidavit filed on 08.10.2021. The assessee submitted that assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 28.12.2017 vide which A.O has allowed ... Land Acquisition Vs MST Katigir Ors. Civil Appeal No. 460 of 1987 dated 19.12.1987 where held that sufficient cause for the purpose of condonation of delay showed he interpreted with a view to do even handed justice on merit in preferences to the approach which scuttles a decision on merit

Smt. Srinivasan Arthi, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 15 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 683/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.683/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Srinivasan Arthi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 9 & 10, Madha Koil First Cross Street, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Neelankarai, Chennai 600 041. Chennai. [Pan:Bljpa4271N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. T V Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""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 : 14.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Appellant: Mrs. T V Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal including 120 days delay owing to Covid-19. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay in the form of an affidavit by stating as under: 2 I.T.A. No.683/Chny/20 “3. That I am an uneducated person and I have only ... appeal before the first appellate authority and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), on 28.12.2018, had dismissed the appeal in limine, without condoning the delay. 10. That on receipt of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), I had immediately entrusted the same to my authorized representatives

Kokila Balaraman, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 13(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 718/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. N. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

both the orders and the findings recorded in I.T.A. No.717/Chny/2019 in the case of Shri Balaraman Gokula Krishnan reads as under: “4. Condonation of Delay: 4.1. The Assessee has stated that the Assessment order was received on 02.04.2016. The due date for filing of the appeal was 01.05.2016; whereas ... filed on 09.02.2018. There has been a delay of 649 days. The Appellant requested to condone the delay vide Column No.15 of Form No.35, stating that as his Auditor was preoccupied with his professional commitments, the appeal was not filed within the period of 30 days. 5. I have carefully

B.Gokula Krishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 13(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 717/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. N. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

both the orders and the findings recorded in I.T.A. No.717/Chny/2019 in the case of Shri Balaraman Gokula Krishnan reads as under: “4. Condonation of Delay: 4.1. The Assessee has stated that the Assessment order was received on 02.04.2016. The due date for filing of the appeal was 01.05.2016; whereas ... filed on 09.02.2018. There has been a delay of 649 days. The Appellant requested to condone the delay vide Column No.15 of Form No.35, stating that as his Auditor was preoccupied with his professional commitments, the appeal was not filed within the period of 30 days. 5. I have carefully

Shri Ramanlal Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc - 6 (2), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1331/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj (CA) for S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 5

looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss.” 5. Similar is the guiding principles laid ... Vijay Vishin Meghani v. DCIT (ITXAL 493 of 2015 dated 19/09/2017) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, while adjudicating the issue of condonation of delay of 2984 days and dealing with the principles of condoning the delay, observed as under: “19. Way back in the year

M/S. Waterline Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 388/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 10Th Floor, Gamma Block, Of Income Tax, Sigma Soft Tech Park No.07, Circle 7(1)(2), Airport Varthur Road, Bangalore. Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aaacw 8059N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals)-7, Bengaluru Dated 27.3.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 18 Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Page 2 Of 20

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 271Section 40Section 56(2)(viib)

during the Covid-19 period. The Page 3 of 20 assessee filed an affidavit with the reasons for the delay and prayed for condonation of delay. The relevant extract of the same is as follows:- “3. In this regard, the Appellant humbly submits that the entire finance team was headed ... lockdown was lifted. It is humbly requested that the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore takes a lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay of 355 days in filing the Appeal before your Honours and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice

Lokhandwala Kataria Construction (Pvt) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 1345/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 7

appeals filed by the assessee before us are delayed by 177 days. Along with the present appeals, assessee has filed separate application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals, which is also supported by an affidavit sworn by the Head of Taxation and Accounts Manager of the assessee company ... Construction Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1344/Mum./2020 and ITA no.1345/Mum./2020 Representative („learned DR’) did not raise any serious objection against the application seeking condonation of delay. Having perused the application, which is also supported by an affidavit, we are of the considered view that there exist sufficient cause

Lokhandwala Kataria Construction (Pvt) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 1344/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 7

appeals filed by the assessee before us are delayed by 177 days. Along with the present appeals, assessee has filed separate application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals, which is also supported by an affidavit sworn by the Head of Taxation and Accounts Manager of the assessee company ... Construction Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1344/Mum./2020 and ITA no.1345/Mum./2020 Representative („learned DR’) did not raise any serious objection against the application seeking condonation of delay. Having perused the application, which is also supported by an affidavit, we are of the considered view that there exist sufficient cause

Eaton Power Quality Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. DCIT, Pondicherry

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 567/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.567/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Eaton Power Quality Pvt Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 2, E.V.R Street, Sedarapet, Tax, Puducherry-605 111. Circle-1, Puducherry. Pan: Aaacc 6943R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1689/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Eaton Power Quality Pvt Circle-1, Ltd. Puducherry-605 003. 2, E.V.R Street, Sedarapet, Puducherry-605 111. Pan: Aaacc 6943R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CITFor Respondent: 27.07.2022
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

delay may be condoned in the interest of justice. 3. Having heard both sides and considered reasons given by the learned DR, for condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that reasons given by the Revenue for not filing the appeal within the time allowed under ... comes under reasonable cause as provided under the Act, for condonation of delay and hence, delay in filing of appeal is adjudication. ITA No.567/Chny/2016 (Assessee’s appeal): 4. The first issue that came up for our consideration from the assessee appeal is transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.3

DCIT, Pondicherry vs. Eaton Power Quality P. Ltd., Pondicherry

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1689/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.567/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Eaton Power Quality Pvt Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 2, E.V.R Street, Sedarapet, Tax, Puducherry-605 111. Circle-1, Puducherry. Pan: Aaacc 6943R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1689/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Eaton Power Quality Pvt Circle-1, Ltd. Puducherry-605 003. 2, E.V.R Street, Sedarapet, Puducherry-605 111. Pan: Aaacc 6943R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CITFor Respondent: 27.07.2022
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

delay may be condoned in the interest of justice. 3. Having heard both sides and considered reasons given by the learned DR, for condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that reasons given by the Revenue for not filing the appeal within the time allowed under ... comes under reasonable cause as provided under the Act, for condonation of delay and hence, delay in filing of appeal is adjudication. ITA No.567/Chny/2016 (Assessee’s appeal): 4. The first issue that came up for our consideration from the assessee appeal is transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.3

Mohammed Fasihuddin, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 16(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 958/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mohammed Fasihuddin, Income Tax Officer-16(1)(3), 104, L2C, Oakland Park, Yamuna Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nagar, Lokhandwala Complex, Vs. Churchgate, Andheri West, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaapf 1795 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mrs. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/09/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 251

days in filing the appeal. pointed out a delay of 843 days in filing the appeal. From the application of the assessee for condonation of delay along with application of the assessee for condonation of delay along with application of the assessee for condonation of delay along with affidavit filed ... material on Departmental Representative (DR) and perused the material on Departmental Representative (DR) and perused the material on record on the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeal. record on the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeal. record on the issue of condonation of delay in filing

Ksb Care Charitable Trust, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer (Exem) 1 (4), Mumbai

ITA 1760/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhksb Care Charitable Vs. Ito (Exm)- 1(4) Trust Piramal Chambers, C/O Ksb Ltd Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbaipune Road, Mumbai-400012. Pimpri, Pune-411018. Pan/Gir No. : Aabtk4311M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Biren Gabhawala.Ar Respondent By : Shri Vivek Anand Ojha.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Biren Gabhawala.ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Anand Ojha.DR
Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(C)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

mistake has filed Form.no. 9A and the assessee is ready to file form 10 and placed reliance on the CBDT circular to condone the delay and accept the form.no 10.The Ld.AR substantiated the submissions with the judicial decisions and the paper book. Contra, the Ld. DR supported the order ... relief. The Ld.AR referred to the CBDT circular dated 3-01-2020 placed at page 44 of the paper book in respect of condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act in filing the form 10 and form 9A. The Ld. AR has demonstrated Para

Archana Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemptions 1(1), Piramal Chambers Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1431/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalarchana Foundation More House 28, New India Housing Society North South Road No.11, Jvpd, Juhu, Mumbai-400049. Pan: Aabta0873E ...... Appellant Vs. Ito (Exemption)-1(1), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Amit Agrawal Respondent By : Sh. Pramod Nikalje Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Amit AgrawalFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Nikalje
Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12A

case & in law, Id. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) was not justified in stating that appellant had not submitted copy of application for condonation of delay made before CIT (Exemptions) whereas such copy and documents already submitted before him. 3. Under the facts & in the circumstances of the case ... Income tax (Appeals) did not consider the fact that Appellant had applied under sec 119(2b) of the Act before CIT(Exemptions) for condonation of delay on 18 12-2019 but due to COVID, no order received 4. Under the facts & in the circumstances of the case

Sri. M. Nagaraja, Mysore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1), Mysore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1905/BANG/2019[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234BSection 263

delay is as per the details given in the annexed statement (List of Dates And Events). We have already filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay on 11.06.2016. The cross objection thus was filed on 18.05.2016 and the same was within the reasonable time from the date of withdrawal ... before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which was on 22.03.2016.” 5. The Ld.AR has filed a fresh affidavit for condonation of delay on 18/11/2018 wherein he has explained the above situation that caused the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. He also prayed

DCIT Cir 4 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Quant Securities Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7756/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 43(5)Section 73

dismissed Notice of Motion no. 1921 of 2007 7 M/s. Quant Securities Pvt. Ltd., in Income Tax Appeal (Lodging) No.852 of 2007 for condonation of delay against the decision of Concord Commercial (P.) Ltd. (supra) holding that even otherwise on merits, the issue was covered by the decision rendered

Microland Foundation, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 411/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayana, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11(2)Section 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 3

confirmed the view taken by the Assessing Officer. However, the CIT(A) noticed that the assessee had filed condonation application (for condoning the delay in filing Form 10) before the Commissioner of Income- tax (Exemption) and the same is pending. Consequently, the CIT(A) directed the A.O. to grant ... learned DR and perused the material on record. As rightly pointed out by the learned DR, the assessee has filed condonation petition for condoning the delay in filing Form No.10 before the CIT(Exemption). If the CIT(Exemption) condones the delay in filing Form No.10, necessary benefit of exemption