“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

Jyoti Ajay Bankda, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 332/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 332/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2014-15) Jyoti Ajay Bankda, 4301, B Wing, Db Woods, Gokuldham, Goregaon (East) Mumbai 400 063. Pan: Adhpb-2855-N ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito-Ward 24(2), Piramal Chambers, Mumbai – 400 012. . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Hiren Bhat सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 14/07/2022 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 16/12/2021, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By Eight Days. The Ld. Authorized Representative For The Assessee Submitted That The Appeal Was Filed Online On 10/02/2022 I.E. Within The Period Of Limitation. However, Physical Copy Of Form No.36 Accompanied By Grounds Of Appeal & The Impugned Order Was 2 Filed On 22/02/2022. The Ld. Authorized Representative For The Assessee Submitted That 8 Days Delay In Filing Of Physical Form -36 May Kindly Be Condoned In The Light Of Extra Ordinary Circumstances Caused By Covid-19 Pandemic. The Revenue Raised No Serious Objection In Condonation Of Delay. Taking Into Consideration Entirety Of Facts The 8 Days Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted To Be Heard On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Hiren Bhat

kindly be condoned in the light of extra ordinary circumstances caused by COVID-19 Pandemic. The Revenue raised no serious objection in condonation of delay. Taking into consideration entirety of facts the 8 days delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard

M/S Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2015/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt. Ltd., The Pr. No. G1, Accolade Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Millers Road, 2Nd Cross, Bangalore – 4, Benson Town, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 046. Pan: Aaicm6586E Appellant Respondent : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order U/S. 263 Dated 25/01/2018 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit, Bangalore – 4 For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Revisionary Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pcit) U/S.263 Dated; 25-01-2018 Is Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & The Law & Therefore, It Is Liable To Be Set-Aside.

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

period.” 3.3 Considering the submissions by both sides and respectfully following the observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find it fit to condone the delay caused in filing the present appeal as it is Page 9 of 15 not attributable to the assessee. Accordingly, we allow the application seeking ... condonation of delay. 4. The Ld.AR submitted that, all the issues alleged by assessee in the present appeal is against invoking the revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. He submitted that, the assessment order dated 20/06/2016 cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue

Manoj Tekriwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 24(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4147/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. AR CIT

Section 14ASection 234ASection 250Section 40Section 54

03/07/2015, which resulted in delay of 5 days in filing the present appeal. In view of the above, the assessee has requested to condone the delay as the same is unintentional and due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative (‘learned ... raise any serious objection against the application seeking condonation of delay. 3. Having perused the application, which is also supported by an affidavit sworn by the assessee, we are of the considered view that there exist sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the limitation period Manoj Tekriwal

Cherembane vs. S Bank Limited, Kodugu

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

ITA 488/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 263Section 80P(2)

I.T.Act. 3. The Registry has noted a delay of 502 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay also an affidavit of the Chief Executive Officer, stating therein the reasons for belated filing of the appeal. The reason stated is that

M/S. Lion Estates and Properties, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 256/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Thirumala Naidu, CA

Ld.AR submitted that the issues alleged before the Ld.CIT(A) on merits has not been decided and the appeal was dismissed for non-condonation of delay. 3. On the contrary, the Ld.DR placed reliance on orders passed by authorities below. 4. We have perused the submissions advanced and note that ... Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.(supra), if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalise injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. 7. Respectfully following

Anand Sweets & Savouries, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 242/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rama Nathan R., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 154

relating to assessment year 2016-17. 2. The main issue in this appeal through various grounds raised by the assessee is regarding non-condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the CIT(Appeals). 3. During the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on 1.10.2016 declaring ... appeal may be taken on records and admitted for hearing.” 12. The Petitioner prays accordingly.” 5. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal without condonation of delay stating that it must be proved beyond the shadow of doubt that the assessee was diligent and not guilty of negligence and the reasons

Anitas Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 9(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is treated as allowed, for statistical purpose

ITA 618/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Anitas Exports Private Limited Vs Ito 9(1)(1) 203, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 340, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Industrial Estate, New Link Road, Andheri M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (W), Mumbai-400 053 Pan : Aafca5386H Appellant Respondent

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 271Section 80I

treated as non est and dismissed with the liberty given to the assessee to e-file the appeal 3 alongwith an application for condonation of delay. The said order was passed on 15/05/2018. The assessee did not challenge the order of Ld.CIT(A). Immediately thereafter, the assessee e-filed ... case that assessee has filed appeal belatedly. The Ld.DR vehemently opposed the same stating that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay. 5. Having heard both the representatives and perused the materials on record, it is evident that the assessee had filed appeal manually on 26/04/2016 against

B P Marine Academy, Navi Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parelmumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purpose

ITA 724/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 263

both the impugned assessment years after the due date specified under section 139(1) and assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10. However, this fact has not been verified by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the learned CIT (Exemption) invoked ... assessee is in appeals before us. 4. During the appellate proceedings before us, the Ld.AR for the assessee stated that the application for condonation of delay in form 10 has been filed before the DIT (Exemption) on 26/07/2021 for both the assessment years, copies of which are placed at pages

B P Marine Academy, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purpose

ITA 723/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 263

Anand Sweets & Savouries, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 241/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Rama Nathan R, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 250Section 40

instead of being confirmed. 2.1 The learned CIT(A)-II, Bangalore has erred in rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal holding that the appellant has failed to substantiate reasonable cause for inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The action ... Savouries. issued the hearing notice u/s 250 of the Act, having heard the appellant personally, has erred in dismissing the appeal by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The action of the CIT(A)-11, Bangalore being contrary to provisions of law is to be negated and appeal

M/S. Rallis India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Cicle-8(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 913/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Rallis India Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 8(1)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla & Room No. 624, 6Th Mistry Llp, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Esplanade House, 29, M.K Road, Hazarimal Somani Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr2657N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jitendra Jain.Ar Respondent By : Mr.S.N Kabra. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) – 8, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Jitendra Jain.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N Kabra. DR

Section 10(34)Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(47)Section 263Section 263eSection 80Section 801A

submitted that there is a delay of 06 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and filed the affidavit for condonation of delay. We found the M/s Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai. facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly ... condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. Further, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has raised the additional ground of appeal challenging the jurisdiction of revision order as under: 1. The appellant submits that the notice u/s 263 and the consequential order are barred by limitation. The appellant

Nishrin Trading & Investments Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle7(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1481/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Arpana SivakumarFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 249(3)Section 250

following grounds:– M/s. Nishrin Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1481/Mum./2021 “(a) The Id CIT(Appeals) erred in facts and law in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal without appreciating that the assessee had taken recourse to rectification application u/s 154 of the Act being ... observing as under:– “8.4. On these contentions of the Appellant, I have noted that except for the averments made in the letter for condonation of delay, no other documentary evidence has been filed by the Appellant. There is no evidence on record to even substantiate the contention of the appellant

Kisha Telelinks Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 478/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Poojan Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. A.R

Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

correctly appreciated the facts of the case in its entirety.” 2. The assessee has also filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 785 days in filing the present appeal. In the said application, it has been submitted that the delay in filing the present appeal is for the reason ... present appeal was filed by the assessee. The submissions Kisha Telelinks Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 478/Mum./2022 made in the application seeking condonation of delay are also supported by an Affidavit sworn by Ms. Bharati Prakash Karamchandani, Director of Assessee company. 3. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative

Advantage Overseas Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 922/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 919/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 920/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 922/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2010-11) बिधम/ Advantage Overseas Pvt. Dcit-1(1) Ltd. Bhopal. Vs. 414, A- Wing Express Zone, Off Western Express Highway Malad (E), Mumbai-400097. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaeca8925F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai Dated 18.02.2022 For Ays. 2014-15 & 2013-14; & Order Dated 11.02.202 For Ay 2010-11. For Ay. 2014-15 (Ita. No. 919/Mum/2022) 2. The Ground No. 1 Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passing The Impugned Order Without Providing The Assessee Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. Having Gone Through The

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

922/Mum/2022) 4. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in not condoning the delay of fourteen (14) days and dismissing the penalty appeal preferred before him. 5. Having gone through the impugned order, we note that that ... fourteen (14) days in filing the appeal before him. However, according to the Ld. CIT(A) since there was no specific request/application of condonation of delay, he dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. We do not countenance such an action Ld. CIT(A). According

Advantage Overseas Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 920/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Advantage Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 919/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Sri Harsha Reddy, Davanagere vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Davanagere

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee for A

ITA 2057/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 148Section 234

2057/Bang/2018 We note that there is a reasonable cause that precluded the assessee to file the appeal on or before 03/06/2018. We therefore, condone the delay and take up the appeal to be disposed off on merits. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay stands allowed for A.Ys

Sri Harsha Reddy, Davanagere vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 1(2), Davanagere

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee for A

ITA 2056/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 148Section 234

Anurag Chandra, Noida vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2407/MUM/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Tejveer SinghFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 143(3)

time of hearing, it is brought to our notice that the appeal is filed with a delay of 02 days and petition for condonation of delay was filed explaining the reasons as to why the delay occurred. The Ld. DR has no serious objection in condoning the delay. The Assessees ... have sufficient cause in filing the appeal with delay. Therefore, we condone the delay of 02 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income declaring ₹.40,78,600/- on 13.10.2016 and at the time of filing

M/S. Lavino Kapur Cottons Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2102/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2102 & 2103/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Dcit Cir-3(2)(1), M/S Lavino Kapur Cottons Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Maharshi Karve Road, 121/122, Mittal Chambers, Vs. Churchgate, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacl0824C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Surinder Mehra, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mehul Jain, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 10.09.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mehra, LdFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, Ld. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 3Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

brought to our notice that there is marginal delay in filing the appeals and vide letter dated 17.11.2021, assessee has requested for condonation of delay, which are as under:- The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is dated 10.09.2021 and the last date for filing the appeal