← 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

Naeemuddin Azimuddin Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 26 (2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4759/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.4759/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2010-11) Naeemuddin Azimuddin Shaikh, 2/25, Parlelshwar Society, Shahaji Raje Marg, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai 400 057. Pan: Blups-1557-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(2)(4), Pratyakshakar Bhavan, C-11, Room No.711, 7Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E),Mumbai 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vishwas Mehendale ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Anoop Hiwase सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/05/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas MehendaleFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

defects the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in-limine on the ground of limitation. The assessee had filed an application seeking condonation of delay 3 citing reasons causing delay in filing of the appeal, however, the same was rejected by the CIT(A) on hyper technical ground. The ld.Authorized ... along with Form -35 were not furnished. The said appeal was also time barred by 501 days. The assessee had filed application seeking condonation of delay, explaining reasons for delay in filing of the appeal. A perusal of the impugned order shows that solitary notice of hearing was sent

Shri Admor Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4209/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Shri Admor Pvt. Ltd., Acit-7(2), 61, Prabha Mandir, Prabhadevi 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400025. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcs 3748 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 5

time. 5. Nevertheless the appeal was filed before this Hon'ble ITAT on date 10th June 2019 accompanied by an application for condonation of delay as provided under section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963 6. That in this way there is a delay of 170 days for which ... given by the assessee, as the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional and deliberate, in the interest of substantial justice, we condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the same for adjudication. M/s Shri Admor Pvt. Ltd. 5 5. Briefly stated, facts of the case

M/S. Vth Source Components Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-3), Bangalore

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

ITA 2620/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Sudheendranath, ARFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

were filed by the assessee on 14.02.2019 with a delay of 122 days in filing the appeal. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The assessee claimed before CIT(A) that the controversy regarding levy of interest u/s.234-E of the Act was not clear ... filing the appeals and those details have been set out in the order of CIT(A). 6. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing appeals stating that the delay is nothing but negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee which could have been avoided

M/S. Steling Exports in., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is dismissed

ITA 23/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 23/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Sterling Exports Inc. बिधम/ Deputy Commissioner Of 405, Konark Darshan-B, Income Tax -23(3), Vs. Zaver Road, Mulund (West), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai - 400080 Bandra-Kurla Complex, Pan : Aalfs8235Q Mumbai - 400051 (अपीलाथी /Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी) / Respondent) For The Appellant/Assessee: Shri Shashank Mehta For The Respondent/Revenue: Shri B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary: 1. By Way Of The Present Appeal The Appellant/Assessee Has Challenged The Order Dated, 24.08.2016 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 40, Mumbai [Hereafter Referred To As „The Cit(A)‟] For The Assessment Year 2010-11, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Had Dismissed The Appeal Against The Assessment Order, Dated 08.03.2013, Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter Referred To As „The Act‟).

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(3)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as „the Act‟). 2. The Appellant, a partnership firm, has filed application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. There is a delay of 1460 days in filing the appeal as the impugned order was served upon the Appellant ... condoning delay of 1460 days in filing the appeal. Though a liberal approach is to be adopted while considering a plea for seeking condonation of delay, in the facts of the present case we are not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the Appellant and condone the delay

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1111/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Commissioner Of Complex, Income Tax, K H Road, Circle – 1 [1][2], Shanti Nagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027. Pan: Aaacb4881D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/02/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & The Facts & Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Refusing To Admit The Appeal Of The Appellant On The Grounds That Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Cannot Be Condoned On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate
Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

Ld.AR submitted that, though several grounds were raised before the Ld.CIT(A) on merits, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for not condoning the delay in filing of appeal of 1037 days before him. The Ld.CIT(A) observed as under: “2.0. At the outset it is seen that there ... this Tribunal to the extent of 1240 days which was condoned by this Tribunal. The Ld.DR opposed the prayer of the assessee for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. On the contrary, the Ld.CIT.DR submitted that there is no decision on the issue, on the additions by Ld.CIT

Simplex Mills Conpany Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Cemtra)-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 175/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal & Filed Simplex Mills Company Ltd, Mumbai. The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. We Find The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Accepted. Contra, Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly The Delay Is Condoned & Admit The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Satish Modi.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit K. Srivastava.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

delay of 12 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and filed Simplex Mills Company Ltd, Mumbai. the affidavit for condonation of delay. We find the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and accepted. Contra, Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly the delay is condoned

Simplex Papers Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Cemtra)-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 174/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesimplex Papers Ltd Vs. Pr. Cit (Central) – 2 2Nd Floor, Simplex Mills 1920, Air India Bldg Compound, 30, Nariman Point, Keshavrao Khadye Mumbai – 400 021. Marg, Sant Gadge Maharaj Chowk, Mumbai – 400 011. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs6910M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Satish Modi.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajit K. Srivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 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)(Central-2)Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act, 1961. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 12 Days In Simplex Papers Ltd, Mumbai. Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & Filed The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. We Find The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Accepted. Contra, Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly The Delay Is Condoned & Admit The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri. Satish Modi.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit K. Srivastava.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

delay of 12 days in Simplex Papers Ltd, Mumbai. filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and filed the affidavit for condonation of delay. We find the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and accepted. Contra, Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly the delay is condoned

M/S. Wellknown Technologies P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-CC-7(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1341/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Wellknown Vs. Acit, Cc -7(4) Technologies Pvt Ltd 6Th Floor, 14Th Floor, Nirmal Aayakar Bhavan, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai – 400 020. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm3469J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Vinita Shah Respondent By : Ms.Indira Adakil.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-49 Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Filed The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms.Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Ms.Indira Adakil.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

assessee submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay and we find the facts mentioned are reasonable and accepted.The Ld.DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal

Mr Arun Sudesh Khanna, Bhiwandi vs. ITO Ward -1(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 1300/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalmr. Arun Sudesh Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1) Khanna Mohan Plaza, Wayale Bldg No. 11-A, Shop Nagar, Khadak Pada, No. 3, Basement Kalyan (W) – 421 301. Ashok Nagar, Kalyan Road, Bhiwandi – 421 302 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk1616Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms.Indira Adkil. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Indira Adkil. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

delay of 45 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assessee has filed the affidavit for condonation of delay. We found the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and accordingly condone the delay and admit the appeal. Contra, Ld. DR has no specific objection

M/S Rarasmani Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO-3, Palghar, Mumbai

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

ITA 4167/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Parasmani Vs. Ito – 3 Developers Aayakar Bhavan, C/O Kiran Nahar, Prabhu Bidco Road, Palghar, Bunglow, Khare Dist, Palghar -401404 Compound, Dahanu Maharashtra. Road, Palghar – 401404 Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. : Aabfp5161G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Anil Thakkar.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Indira Adakil.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Thane Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Filed The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Anil Thakkar.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Indira Adakil.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessee submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay and we find the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and acceptable. The Ld.DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay

M/S.Mehulkumar Rameshkumar & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2223/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 2223, 2224 & 2225/Mum/2018 (A.Ys: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Mr.Sidharth Kothari.ARFor Respondent: Mr.T.Shankar .DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

assessee submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeals before the Hon’ble Tribunal and filed the affidavit for condonation of delay. We found the facts mentioned in ITA No. 2223 to 2225/Mum/2022 M/s Mehulkumar Rameshkumar & Co., Mumbai. the affidavit are reasonable. Contra, the Ld.DR has no specific ... objections. Accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeals. Since the issues in these three appeals are common and identical, hence they are clubbed, heard and consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience we shall take up assessee appeal in ITA No. 2225/Mum/2018

Veena G. Netto, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals)-57, Mumbai

ITA 1594/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhveena G. Netto Vs. Commissioner Of Income B-207, Hill Crest,-1, Tax (Appeals)-57 Raheja Vihar, Opp Mumbai – 400 021 Chandevali Farm Road, Powai, Mumbai – 400072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ahkpn7043F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dipesh RupareliaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 144Section 234BSection 234CSection 271

ITAT to decide the appeal according to law.” 2. During the course of appellate proceeding before us the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal by 898 days. The assessee has also attached the affidavit explaining the reason for delay in filing the instant ... Powai branch in Mumbai was frozen by the Income Tax Department on account of outstanding tax arrears. Therefore, the assessee has requested for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal due to abovementioned reasons beyond her control. 3. Heard both the side and perused the material on record

Praham India LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 31, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5197/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepraham India Llp V. Pr. Cit – 31 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Patel Estate, Off. Sv Road Bandra Kurla Complex Jogeshwari (W) Bandra(E), Mumbai – 400051 Mumbai - 400102 Pan: Aamfp3204H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

delay of 65 days in filling the appeal and assessee has filed affidavit in this regard and Ld.DR objected for the condonation of delay. After considering the affidavit, we condone the delay. 3. Brief facts of the case are, Ld. Pr.CIT while examining the records of the Assessment Order passed

Shri Muniyappa Narashimaiah, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 26/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year :2013-14 Shri. Muniyappa Narashimaiah, Vs. Ito, No.120/1, Hessarghatta Main Road, Ward – 6(2)(3), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, T Dasarahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 057. Pan : Abmpn 5245 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Mahesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54B

delay in filing the appeal. 3. The reasons for the delay in filing the appeal has been mentioned in the application for condonation for delay by the assessee before the Tribunal. It has been stated therein that one Shri. Ramakrishna Reddy, CA, was engaged by the assessee to handle ... appellant that the Id. CIT(A) has dismissed appeal partly erroneously and the same has to be appealed before ITAT along with condonation of delay, and only thereby the Appellant can apply either for Vivad se vishwas or contest the case (in case the scheme is denied). Hence the present

Shri Sanjay Gopal Pandit, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1902/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrio.P. Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 249(2)Section 250

under consideration. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeals on the basis that same have been filed belatedly and no sufficient cause for condoning the delay has been put forth by the assessee. Further, the assessee has also not filed the copy of intimation/order issued under section 200A ... delay and also defects in filing the appeals by the assessee. The learned CIT(A) also rejected the submission of the assessee seeking condonation of delay that the assessee has not received any intimation of such outstanding dues and only upon initiation of recovery proceedings, assessee came to know about

Pragati Trading Co., Mumbai vs. ITO - 27(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is disposed of by treating the same as withdrawn

ITA 2063/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pragati Trading Co. Vs. Ito 27(2)(5) B/154, Kanara Business Centre, Mumbai 400073 Off Ghatkopar Link Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400075 Appellant. Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri SubramanianFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Section 2Section 3Section 4Section 5Section 6Section 9

assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shall place such

Rekha Prakash Niichani, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 1734/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2010-11
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

conclusion that there is a delay in filing the present appeal then the applicant herein craves leave to file a separate application for condonation of delay interalia on ground that the applicant was under joining treatment for COLON CANCER and due to the application side effects of CHEMOTHERAPY the applicant

Joseph Peter Galiaud, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 17(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1727/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2014-15
Section 127(3)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee paid the due taxes. However subsequently he received order levying penalty. Then he considered filing appeal. In these facts assessee seeks condonation of delay of over 1300 days. 4. Upon careful consideration, I do not find any cogency in the reasonable cause attributed. Hence, the delay is not liable

M/S. Nitesh Estates Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1486/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Nitesh Estates The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Nitesh Time Square, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, #8, M.G. Road, Circle – 5 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn9267C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28/03/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Re-Assessment Is Bad In Law & Void-Ab- Initio For Want Of Requisite Jurisdiction Especially, The Mandatory Requirements To Assume Jurisdiction U/S 148 Of The Act Did Not Exist & Have Not Been Complied With & Consequently, The Re-Assessment Requires To Be Cancelled. 3. The Learned Cit[A] Ought To Have Appreciated That There Was No Fresh Material To Show That Income Had Escaped Assessment Especially When There Was A Scrutiny

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

therefore disallowed.” Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee is an appeal before the Tribunal. Page 5 of 17 Application for condonation of delay 5. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal. The Ld.AR has filed ... crisis assessee was in short of staff, and filing of appeal within the period of limitation escaped sight. He thus, prayed for the condonation of delay by 10 days. On the contrary, the Ld.CIT.DR vehemently opposed the application filed by assessee seeking to condone the delay in filing the present

DCIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Wall Street Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2175/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 250Section 50Section 54E

condoned in the interest of justice. On the other hand, Shri Madhur Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee did not object to condonation of delay in filing the present appeal and submitted that the issues raised in Revenue’s appeal are covered in favour of assessee by decisions ... Jurisdictional High Court. In view of the above, we condone the delay of 2 days in filing the present appeal and we hear the appeal on merits. 4. The assessee is engaged in the business of Consultancy Services and Forex Dealers. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown