← 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

Nityanand, Sant Kabir Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Basti

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 470/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2016-17 Nityanand V. The Income Tax Officer Vill. & Post Dhamaicha Basti Sant Kabir Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Agzpn3158R (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Vikram Acharya, Aca Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Teacher Employed With The Government Of U.P. & Earned Salary Income. The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.2,16,55,000/- In His Bank Account No.144200101001330 Maintained With Corporation Bank During The Year Under Consideration & The Cash Deposited By The Assessee During The Demonetization Period, I.E. From 01.04.2015 To 31.302.016 Was Rs.15,05,000/-. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 03.07.2025 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit and Medical Certificate, stating therein that the assessee was undergoing treatment for a critical medical condition from ... objected to the delay being condoned. 3.2 In view of the prayer made by the Ld. A.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 3.3 The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessment order passed by the AO was under section 147 read

Dhirendra Pratap, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2), Ward-3(2), Hardoi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 467/LKW/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dhirendra Pratap V. The Income Tax Officer A-16/1052, Sector 15 Ward 3(2) Near Vasundhra Complex Hardoi Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ayepp3148C (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 06.11.2018 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,75,750/-. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash To The Tune Of Rs.19,81,000/- In His Bank Account. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued A Query Letter Under Section 133(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) On 04.01.2018, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Source Of Cash Deposits Along With Other Evidentiary Proof, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Reply On 07.02.2018. Since

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated Nil for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit, stating therein that the appeal before the Tribunal could not be filed within the stipulated period on the advice ... objected to the delay being condoned. 3.2 In view of the prayer made by the Ld. A.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 4.0 During the course of hearing, the main contention of the Ld. A.R. before me was that notice

Katrina Satishkumar Kirpalani, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(2) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the asessee is, allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1599/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr. DR
Section 250

registry has reported a delay of 324 days in the filing of the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay on the grounds of sufficient cause stating that when the appellate proceedings were going on, the assessee had wound up her small business in Ahmedabad ... case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another Vs. M/s Katiji and Others 1988 SC 897(7), while dealing with the aspect of condonation of delays has held that a liberal approach be adopted for condonation of delay based on the principle that the ultimate object / life-purpose of Courts

Bhavnath Education Trust, Bavnagar vs. The ITO(Exemption) Ward, Bhavnagar

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

ITA 1559/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1559/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) बनाम/ Bhavnath Education Trust Income Tax Officer Bhanagar Highway, Dist. (Exemption) Vs. Bhavnagar, Ranghola- Ward, Bhavnagar 364230 / Aayakar Bhawan, Income Sanghavi & Company, Tax Office, Bhavanagar Prasham, 4Th Floor, Kasturba Road, Nr. Bilkha Plaza, Rajkot - 360001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb2003J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri M K Patel, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/01/2026 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

Counsel for the assessee has filed ITA No.1559/Ahd/2025 [Bhavnath Education Trust vs. ITO(E)] A.Y. 2018-19 - 2 – an application seeking condonation of delay in a duly sworn affidavit. Referring to the same, he has attributed the delay to the fact that the order ... confirming the addition made by the AO. He pleaded, therefore, that the assessee having a clear- cut case in its favour, the non-condonation of delay in filing of the present appeal would result in grave injustice to the assessee. Accordingly, demonstrating sufficient cause for the delay and also pointing

Initiative for Moral and Cultural Training Foundation Telangana, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1015/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1015/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25) Initiative For Moral & Vs. Commissioner Of Income Cultural Training Tax (Exemptions) Foundation Telangana, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aacti2564F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate T. Chaitanya Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Initiative For Moral & Cultural Training Foundation Telangana, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), (“Ld. Cit(E)”) Dated 19.03.2025 For The A.Y 2024-25. Page 1 Of 6

For Appellant: Advocate T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT
Section 80G

that there is a delay of 11 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for such delay. We have perused the condonation petition and considered the submissions made by the Learned Authorized Representative ... while dealing with the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal, we are inclined to condone the delay of 11 days in filing of this appeal before us and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds

Bharat Kumar Bansal, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1006/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Copies Of The Affidavits Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay & Praying For Condonation Of The Same. After Considering The Reasons Stated By The Assessee & Upon Hearing The Submissions Of The Learned Departmental Representative ("Ld. Dr"), We Are Satisfied That The Delay Was Due To Reasonable Cause. Accordingly, The Delay Of 06 Days In Filing Of All These Appeals Are Condoned & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 153CSection 80C

there is a delay of 06 days in filing of all these appeals before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed separate petitions for condonation of delay along with copies of the affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay and praying for condonation of the same. After considering the reasons stated

Bharat Kumar Bansal, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1005/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1000 To 1006/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax Pan:Abfpb6416P Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Seven Appeals Are Filed By Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) All Dated 07.03.2025 For The A.Ys. 2013- 14 To 2019-20. Since Common & Identical Issues Are Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing Of All These Appeals Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri A Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 153C

this Tribunal. The assessee has Page 1 of 9 ITA Nos 1000 to 1006 of 2025 Bharat Kumar Bansal filed separate petitions for condonation of delay along with copies of the affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay and praying for condonation of the same. After considering the reasons stated

Bharat Kumar Bansal, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1004/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1000 To 1006/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax Pan:Abfpb6416P Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Seven Appeals Are Filed By Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) All Dated 07.03.2025 For The A.Ys. 2013- 14 To 2019-20. Since Common & Identical Issues Are Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing Of All These Appeals Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri A Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 153C

this Tribunal. The assessee has Page 1 of 9 ITA Nos 1000 to 1006 of 2025 Bharat Kumar Bansal filed separate petitions for condonation of delay along with copies of the affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay and praying for condonation of the same. After considering the reasons stated

Bharat Kumar Bansal, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1003/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1000 To 1006/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax Pan:Abfpb6416P Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Seven Appeals Are Filed By Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) All Dated 07.03.2025 For The A.Ys. 2013- 14 To 2019-20. Since Common & Identical Issues Are Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing Of All These Appeals Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri A Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 153C

this Tribunal. The assessee has Page 1 of 9 ITA Nos 1000 to 1006 of 2025 Bharat Kumar Bansal filed separate petitions for condonation of delay along with copies of the affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay and praying for condonation of the same. After considering the reasons stated

Bharat Kumar Bansal, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1002/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1000 To 1006/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax Pan:Abfpb6416P Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Seven Appeals Are Filed By Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) All Dated 07.03.2025 For The A.Ys. 2013- 14 To 2019-20. Since Common & Identical Issues Are Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing Of All These Appeals Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri A Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 153C

this Tribunal. The assessee has Page 1 of 9 ITA Nos 1000 to 1006 of 2025 Bharat Kumar Bansal filed separate petitions for condonation of delay along with copies of the affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay and praying for condonation of the same. After considering the reasons stated

Bharat Kumar Bansal, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1001/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1000 To 1006/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal Vs. Hyderabad Pan:Abfpb6416P (Appellant) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri A Srinivas, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: | Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: | 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Seven Appeals Are Filed By Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) All Dated 07.03.2025 For The A.Ys. 2013- 14 To 2019-20. Since Common & Identical Issues Are Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing Of All These Appeals Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Copies Of The Affidavits Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay & Praying For Condonation Of The Same. After Considering The Reasons Stated By The Assessee & Upon Hearing The Submissions Of The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. Dr”), We Are Satisfied That The Delay Was Due To Reasonable Cause. Accordingly, The Delay Of 06 Days In Filing Of All These Appeals Are Condoned & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication On Merits. 3. Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee In

For Appellant: Shri A Srinivas, CA
Section 153C

there is a delay of 06 days in filing of all these appeals before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed separate petitions for condonation of delay along with copies of the affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay and praying for condonation of the same. After considering the reasons stated

Bharat Kumar Bansal, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1000/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1000 To 1006/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax Pan:Abfpb6416P Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Seven Appeals Are Filed By Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) All Dated 07.03.2025 For The A.Ys. 2013- 14 To 2019-20. Since Common & Identical Issues Are Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing Of All These Appeals Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri A Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 153C

this Tribunal. The assessee has Page 1 of 9 ITA Nos 1000 to 1006 of 2025 Bharat Kumar Bansal filed separate petitions for condonation of delay along with copies of the affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay and praying for condonation of the same. After considering the reasons stated

Thalla Srisailam Goud, Ibrahimpatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 589/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR and Ms. Payal Gupta, SR-DR
Section 147Section 148

neither intentional nor deliberate and was caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Accordingly, a prayer was made for condonation of delay in the interest of justice. ITA Nos.549 & 589/Hyd/2024 24 16. Per contra, the Ld. DR objected to the condonation of delay, submitting that the assessee ... examination of the judicial precedents relied upon by the Ld. DR, we find that in all those cases, the courts had not condoned the delay due to the reason that there was no sufficient cause for the delay. However, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable

Desu Enterprises, Ongole vs. ITO., Ward-1, Ongole

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 549/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.549 & 589/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2013-14) 1. M/S. Desu Enterprises, Ongole (A.P.) Pan: Aagfd1940C 2. Thalla Srisailam Goud, Ibrahimpatnam. Pan: Αιτpg3044K (Appellants) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ongole. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad. (Respondents) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessees By: राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr & Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Desu Enterprises & Shri Thalla Srisailam Goud (“The Assessees”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 26.02.2024 & 09.04.2024 For The A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Respondent: Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate
Section 147Section 148

neither intentional nor deliberate and was caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Accordingly, a prayer was made for condonation of delay in the interest of justice. 16. Per contra, the Ld. DR objected to the condonation of delay, submitting that the assessee has failed to show ... examination of the judicial precedents relied upon by the Ld. DR, we find that in all those cases, the courts had not condoned the delay due to the reason that there was no sufficient cause for the delay. However, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable

Poongavanam Elumalai, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward -9(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3375/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3375/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. G. Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

available on record. We notice from the perusal of the order of the CIT(A) that the assessee had filed a petition for condonation of delay stating that the assessee is suffering from various medical issues and could not attend to his business regularly. It if further noticed that ... interest of natural justice and fair play. Accordingly, we are remitting the appeal back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law considering all the grounds raised by the assessee. The assessee is directed to submit the required

Apex Civil Engineering, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncc-8(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2766/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2766/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 40Section 40(1)(ia)

erstwhile tax consultant. However the CIT(A) did not accept the submissions of the assessee and dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. We have heard the both the parities, perused ... available on record. We notice from the perusal of the order of the CIT(A) that the assessee had filed a petition for condonation of delay stating that the assessee Apex Civil Engineering :- 3 -: did not know about the completion of reassessment since the communications regarding the same was sent

Tamilnadu State Apex Fisheries Coop Federation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2753/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2750, 2751, 2752 & 2753/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. M. Ravi Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

2753/Chny/2025 Tamilnadu State Apex fisheries Co.op. Federation Ltd. :- 2 -: assessee is against the order of CIT(A) dismissing the appeals in limine without condoning the delay. For the purpose of adjudication, we will first consider the appeal filed for A.Y 2013-14. 2. The assessee is a statutory federation established ... delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) called on the assessee to furnish the application for condonation of delay explaining the cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Since, the assessee did not file the condonation petition or further details

Tamilnadu State Apex Fisheries Coop Federation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2752/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2750, 2751, 2752 & 2753/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. M. Ravi Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

2753/Chny/2025 Tamilnadu State Apex fisheries Co.op. Federation Ltd. :- 2 -: assessee is against the order of CIT(A) dismissing the appeals in limine without condoning the delay. For the purpose of adjudication, we will first consider the appeal filed for A.Y 2013-14. 2. The assessee is a statutory federation established ... delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) called on the assessee to furnish the application for condonation of delay explaining the cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Since, the assessee did not file the condonation petition or further details

Tamilnadu State Apex Fisheries Coop Federation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2751/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2750, 2751, 2752 & 2753/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. M. Ravi Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

2753/Chny/2025 Tamilnadu State Apex fisheries Co.op. Federation Ltd. :- 2 -: assessee is against the order of CIT(A) dismissing the appeals in limine without condoning the delay. For the purpose of adjudication, we will first consider the appeal filed for A.Y 2013-14. 2. The assessee is a statutory federation established ... delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) called on the assessee to furnish the application for condonation of delay explaining the cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Since, the assessee did not file the condonation petition or further details

Tamilnadu State Apex Fisheries Coop Federation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2750/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2750, 2751, 2752 & 2753/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. M. Ravi Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

2753/Chny/2025 Tamilnadu State Apex fisheries Co.op. Federation Ltd. :- 2 -: assessee is against the order of CIT(A) dismissing the appeals in limine without condoning the delay. For the purpose of adjudication, we will first consider the appeal filed for A.Y 2013-14. 2. The assessee is a statutory federation established ... delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) called on the assessee to furnish the application for condonation of delay explaining the cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Since, the assessee did not file the condonation petition or further details