“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

F.R.P.Institute, Chennai vs. Dlc Wx AO Number 3 Range 201, Chennai

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

ITA 2728/CHNY/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2728/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Frp Institute, 4, Avinash Bhuvan, Dixit Cross Road No.1, Vile Parle Park, Mumbai Suburban – 400 057. Pan: Aaatf 1026B (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषण की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Exemption Ward-3, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : None (Adjournment Petition Filed By Ld. A.R, Deepak Anant, C.A) : Ms. Latchana, Jcit : 16.12.2025 : 07.01.2026 Per Padmavathy.S, A.M: आदेश / Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./Jfaa, Panchkula (In Short "Faa") Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") Dated 05.08.2025 For

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

short "the Act") dated 05.08.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. The issue contended in this appeal pertains to the FAA not condoning the delay in filing Form-10B. :- 2 -: ITA No.2728/Chny/2025 FRP Institute 2. The assessee is a charitable trust and is registered ... There was a delay of 1750 days in filing the appeal before the FAA. The FAA dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. 4. We have heard the both the parities, perused the material available on record. We notice that the assessee has filed a petition before

Sunni Hanfi Mashayaki Momin Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 31(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7186/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () &

that, appeal has been filed by assessee before this Tribunal with a delay of 495 days. The assessee has furnished an application seeking condonation of delay wherein it is submitted that, assessee's consultant used to look after the tax compliances on whose e-mail id the order of NFAC ... fresh adjudication on merits, by granting the assessee one final opportunity of being heard. - 4.1. Having considered the above undisputed facts, and while condoning the delay, we are also mindful of the conduct of the assessee. In order to balance the equities and to ensure due diligence in future proceedings

Sunni Hanfi Mashayaki Momin Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 31(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7185/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

that, appeal has been filed by assessee before this Tribunal with a delay of 495 days. The assessee has furnished an application seeking condonation of delay wherein it is submitted that, assessee’s consultant used to look after the tax compliances on whose e-mail id the order of NFAC ... fresh adjudication on merits, by granting the assessee one final opportunity of being heard. 4.1. Having considered the above undisputed facts, and while condoning the delay, we are also mindful of the conduct of the assessee. In order to balance the equities and to ensure due diligence in future proceedings

M/S. Sai Builders and Developers, Vashi, Navi Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-27, Vashi, Navi Mumbai

ITA 4520/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethm/S Sai Builders & Developers. B12, Ashiana, Plot No.15, Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan/Gir No: Abbfs0092C (Appellant) Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-27. It-Office, Vashi Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai-400703. (Respondent) Appellant By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Shri Shashank Mehta Shri Vivek Perampurna, Cit-Dr 07.01.2026 28.01.2026 Order Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘Act') By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mumbai-27 Dated 16.03.2025 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Principal Cit, Mumbai-27 Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Holding That The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify, Amend Or Substitute All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal." 1

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 263

delay of 1114 days. 4. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed affidavit of the partner of the assessee firm praying for condonation of delay in filing appeal against the order of PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. In the affidavit, the chronology of the events has been mentioned ... days in filing appeal before the ITAT. 2 ITA No.4520/MUM/2025/AY 2017-18 M/s Sai Builders and Developers the appellant has sought condonation of delay u/s 253(5) of the Act stating that it was under genuine belief that the CIT(A) was the appropriate authority for filing appeal against

S.D Education Society, Karnal vs. ACIT Circle, Karnal

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

ITA 5224/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Girish Aneja, CAFor Respondent: Ms Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Revenue by : Ms Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07.01.2026 ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The applications for condonation of delay of 239 days in filing the appeals and the appeals are directed against the order dated 10.10.2024 of the ld. Commissioner of Income

S.D Education Society, Karnal vs. ACIT Circle Karnal, Karnal

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

ITA 5223/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Girish Aneja, CAFor Respondent: Ms Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

The Hisar Leading Bank Co-Op Non-Agri Thrift & Credit Society, Hisar vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hisar

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5053/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

Assessee, dismissed the same as the Appeal was filed with a delay of 10 days. Though the Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay narrating the cause for the delay, the Ld. CIT(A) committed grave error in not condoning the delay of 10 days and dismissing ... Appeal for delay in latches. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay of 10 days and should have decided the appeal on its merit. In so far as, merit is concerned. It is the case of the Assessee that the issueinvolved in the appeal is squarely covered

Deliverhealth Services Private Limited (Earlier Known As Transcend Mt Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1), Delhi

ITA 3339/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Sahni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr. DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘E’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH

Saurav Beverages Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 3286/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Saurav Beverage Private Vs Income Tax Officer, Limited, A-8/1, G.T. Road, C. R. Building, Delhi Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 Pan- Aaocs3617G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Mr. Shani Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.01.2024 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10047822 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act,1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of The Reassessment Order Dated 25.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. This Appeal Was Filed Delayed By 413 By The Assessee For Which An Application For Condonation Of Delay Is Filed Alongwith An Affidavit Of The Director Of The Assessee Company Reaffirming The Facts Stated In The Application. It Is Stated That The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Was Not Received In Time & The Same Was Traced & Saurav Beverages Vs. Ito Obtained Only After Persistent Follow-Up With The Department. It Is Further Stated That The Assessee Underwent Internal Restructuring & Staff Changes, Causing Procedural Delays In Collating Records. It Is Further Stated That The Delay Was Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But Purely Due To The Above Unavoidable Circumstances. It Is Thus Requested That Delay Being Bonafide, Deserves To Be Condoned & Appeal Be Admitted For Adjudication.

Section 143(3)Section 250

pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. This appeal was filed delayed by 413 by the assessee for which an application for condonation of delay is filed alongwith an affidavit of the director of the assessee company reaffirming the facts stated in the application. It is stated that the order ... requested that delay being bonafide, deserves to be condoned and appeal be admitted for adjudication. 3. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR opposed the condonation of delay. 4. After considering the arguments of both the parties, we find that there is reasonable and sufficient cause with the assessee in filing

Nishith Dand (Individual), Vadodara vs. I.T.O Ward 2(1), Bharuch

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

ITA 528/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Nishith Dand Vs. Income Tax Officer, S/O. Anand Dand, Ward 2(1) 402, Atlantis 2, 25-28, Paanchbatti, Haribhakli Extension, Railway Station Road, Race Course Old Padra Road Near Shalimar Theater, Vadodara – 390 007. Bharuch – 392 001. Gujarat. Gujarat. Pan/Gir No. Achpd6118R (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250

heard the Ld. DR, we found that Ld. CIT(A) had not granted any opportunity to the assessee to move application for seeking condonation of delay. Whereas in Form No. 35 assessee had already made request for condonation of delay. Since the assessee was ex-parte therefore could not point

Sunil Kumar, Bokaro vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Bokaro

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysunil Kumar, I.T.O., 255, Jora Mandir Road, Chas, Ward-3(1), Vs. Bokaro-827013 (Jharkhand) Bokaro. Pan No. Alypk 0473 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 148Section 148A

revenue. 3. There is a delay of 12 days in filing of this appeal for which the assessee has filed necessary petition for condonation of delay. Considering the meagerness of the delay and the reasons given by the assessee, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned

Shishu Niketan Trust, Jamshedpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Patna

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 69/RAN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshishu Niketan Trust, C.I.T.(Exemption), Road No. 19, Farm Area, Kadma, Patna. Vs. Jamshedpur-831005 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aacts 5425 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 80G

purposes. 7. There is a delay of 22 days in filing of this appeal for which the assessee has filed necessary petition for condonation of delay. Considering the meagerness of the delay and the reasons given by the assessee, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned

The Nanawan Co-Operative Agriculture Society, Hamirpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Hamirpur

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 953/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Tribunal.

For Appellant: Sh. Alok Krishan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 119Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

such cases, lies in CBDT Circular No. 13 of 2023 dated 26-07-2023 (F.No.173/2112023-IT A-I) which read as under: - Sub:- Condonation of delay under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for returns of income claiming deduction ... operative societies claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act for various assessment years from AY 2018-19 to AY 2022-23, regarding condonation of delay in furnishing return of income and to treat such returns as 'returns furnished within the due date under sub-section (I) of section

The Swahalwa Co-Operative Agriculture Service Society Ltd., Distt. Hamirpur vs. ITO, Ward Hamipur, Hamirpur

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 886/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: us.3. I find that the appropriate course of action for the assessee, on the facts of such cases, lies in CBDT Circular No. 13 of 2023 dated 26-07-2023 (F.No.173/2112023-IT A-I) which read as under: -

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 119Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Rcs Associates Charitable Trust, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption, Solan

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 769/CHANDI/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.759/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.769/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2024-25) Rcs Associates Charitable Trust Ito Exemption 74/1, Lower Bazar, Shimla Income Tax Office बनाम/ Vs. Himachal Pradesh - 171001 New Bypass Road, Kathed, Solan (Hp) - 173208 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabtr-8127-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Vishal Mohan (Sr. Advocate) A/W Sh. Praveen Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. Ars (Virtual Mode) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 06-01-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us For Assessment Years (Ay) 2023-24 & 2024-25. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2023-24 Which Arises Out Of An Order Ld. Addl. Cit / Joint Cit (Appeals)-9, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 26-03-2025 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan (Sr. Advocate) a/w Sh. PraveenFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

order and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration on similar lines. The assessee may seek condonation of delay in filing of Form 10BB from appropriate authority as per extant instructions / guidelines. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Conclusion 8. Both

Rcs Associates Charitable Trust, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Solan

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 759/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan (Sr. Advocate) a/w Sh. PraveenFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Amardeep Chaudhary, Panchkula, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 Panchkula, Panchkula Haryana

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 750/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.750/Chd/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Amardeep Chaudhary Ito Ward 1 Panchkula बनाम/ Vs. House No. 153, Sector-2, Ito Ward-1, Panchkula, Panchkula, Haryana - 134112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakpc-3432-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ : Sh. B.M. Monga & Sh. Rohit Kaura (Advocates) Appellant By ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06- 01-2026

For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 23Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

before the Tribunal. The Counsel of the Assessee has filed an application along with Affidavit on behalf of the Assessee, making prayer for condonation of delay. The affidavit of the Assessee is as under: 4 6 4. We have considered the reasons given in the Application / Affidavit and keeping ... view the facts and circumstances mentioned therein, we are inclined to condone the delay. 5. The ld. DR did not have any objection for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 6. Appeal

Unnatiben Suhitbhai Gajjar, New Sama Road Vadodara vs. ITO Ward, Vadodara

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

ITA 1128/AHD/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026AY 2010-2011

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Hiral Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 154

respond the same. Thus, the assessee filed belated appeal for approximately 3113 days before the CIT(A), thereby filing separate application for condonation of delay. The CIT(A) vide order dated 10-03-2025 did not reject the condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee ... condoned and the matter remanded back to the file of the CIT(A). 5. The ld. D.R. vehemently opposed the condonation of delay. I.T.A No. 1128/Ahd/2025 Unnatiben Suhitbhai Gajjar, A.Y. 2010-11 6. Heard both the parties and perused all the material available on record. It is pertinent to note

Binny Kohli, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2650/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2648 To 2650/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Priyesh KhiradFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha

Section 147Section 156Section 246A

filed before ld.CIT(A) in time owing to ‘reasonable cause’ and therefore prayed for granting one more opportunity to the assessee by condoning the delay and restoring the appeals to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Ld. DR on the other hand supported the impugned orders ... hands of assessee against which the assessee preferred appeals before ld.CIT(A) but with delay. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without condoning the delay. Reasons for the delay stated before the ld.CIT(A) reads as under : “Subject: Condonation of delay in submission of Appeal u/s 246A

Binny Kohli, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2649/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2648 To 2650/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Priyesh KhiradFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha

Section 147Section 156Section 246A