“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

Smt Rashmi Ramesh Damani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 17(1), Mumbai

ITA 1129/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

present appeal be condoned and in this regard reliance was placed upon the affidavit filed by the Assessee along with application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal which reads as under: ―1. That I am regularly assessed to tax for more than four decades and have been regularly ... control and I was prevented by the reasonable cause. 10. That the present Affidavit is being filed as part of application for condonation of delay. 11. That whatever stated above is true to the best of my knowledge.‖ 3.1. It was submitted that the delay was caused on account

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Sh. Radhey Shyam Bansal, New Delhi

Accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed

ITA 5721/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

common order. 3. All the three appeals filed by the revenue are barred by limitation by 16 days for which an application for condonation of delay is filed wherein it is stated by the AO that due to pre- occupation in time barring matters appeal could not be filed ... time and requested for condonation of delay for which the opposite party has not objected. After considering the facts, we find that there is reasonable and sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeals and therefore, in the larger interest of justice, we condone the delay and admit

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Sh. Radhey Shyam Bansal, New Delhi

Accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed

ITA 5720/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Sh. Radhey Shyam Bansal, New Delhi

Accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed

ITA 5719/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Shyamlal Lalchand Singh, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(6), Surat

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

ITA 209/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271ASection 37(1)Section 68

hearing of the appeal. 3. There is a delay of 418 days in filing the present appeal. A separate application of condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been stated that during of the course of assessment proceedings, the notices were issue Shyamlal lalchand singh Vs. ITO Asst

Ram Dev Daiya, Jaipur vs. ITO WD-1, Jhunjhunu

ITA 1280/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: The Tribunal. Learned Counsel For The Assessee Referred To The Contents Of The Application While Orally Making Out A Case Of There Being

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary

Section 250Section 5

appeal has been noted to be time-barred by 476 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The contents of the application are substantiated in a duly sworn affidavit dated 18.12.2025 which was also filed before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the assessee referred ... contention was that as per the facts leading to delay the assessee fulfilled all the principles lay down by Judicial Authorities for condoning the delay. Reference was made to several decisions in this regard, which shall be referred to in the later part of the judgment

Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward, Kolhapur vs. The New Miraj Education Society, Miraj, Dist. Sangli

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 928/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Udaya Bhaskar Jakke, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

fact that the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax i.e. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune had already rejected assessee's application for condonation of delay u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act for the delay in filing of Form No.10B for A.Y. 2021-22 vide order dated ... further submitted that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune vide order dated 05/10/2023 has already rejected the assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B for A.Y.2021-22 under consideration. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) should be set aside and that

G.S. Procon Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 5(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 509/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Bonnie Deb Barma, Sr. DR

Section 56(2)(vii)

filed belatedly by 345 days. In this regard, the Managing Director on behalf of the assessee company has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein that due to some unavoidable circumstances and due to his illness, the appeal could not be filed within the time, therefore, he requested ... condoned and the appeal of the assessee company be admitted for hearing. Ld. Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Considering the submission of the ld. AR and the prayer of the Managing Director on behalf of the assessee company, the 2 delay

Mudiali Club, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Exemption, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2443/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri R. Patodia & Ms. Sonal AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Lakra, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

appeal of the assessee is filed belatedly by 59 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation application stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection. Considering the prayer of the assessee, the delay

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

ITA 3048/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3046, 3047 & 3048/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Pooja Prabhakar, 17 Kingston Apartments, M G Ramachandran Road Kalakshetra Colony, Chennai - 600 090. [Pan: Bcgpp-8061-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Ito, Vs. Non-Corp Ward -15(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr. R. Venkataraman, Fca & Mr. K. Vishwa Padmanabhan, Fca. : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : : 16.12.2025 : 01.01.2026 These Three Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 25.08.2025, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”). The Impugned Orders Arise Out Of The Assessments Framed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao”) U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Pertaining To Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 :-2-:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 201Section 69A

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] has erred, both in law and on facts, in refusing to condone the delay in filing of the appeal by the appellant, and thereby failed to adjudicate the appeal on its merits. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have ... Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] has erred, both in law and on facts, in refusing to condone the delay in filing of the appeal by the appellant, and thereby failed to adjudicate the appeal on its merits. The Ld. CIT(A) ought

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3047/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkataraman, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 201Section 69A

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

ITA 3046/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3046, 3047 & 3048/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Pooja Prabhakar, 17 Kingston Apartments, M G Ramachandran Road Kalakshetra Colony, Chennai - 600 090. [Pan: Bcgpp-8061-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By Ito, Vs. Non-Corp Ward -15(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr. R. Venkataraman, Fca & Mr. K. Vishwa Padmanabhan, Fca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Three Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 25.08.2025, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”). The Impugned Orders Arise Out Of The Assessments Framed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao”) U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Pertaining To Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

Cosmopolitan Education Society, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Exemption Circle -1, Mumbai

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

ITA 6707/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethcosmopolitan Education Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Society Exemption Circle -1, Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill D.N. Nagar, Cosmopolitan Education Society Road, Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Cumballa Andheri(W), Hill, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400026 Pan/Gir No: Aaatc1726 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

denied. The Ld. FAA also failed to appreciate that rejection by the Ld. CIT(E), Mumbai, of the appellant's application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B had no bearing on the appeal before the Ld. FAA. Your appellant, therefore, prays that exemption u/s. 11 be allowed ... return of income which is mandatory. The assessee being aggrieved preferred first appeal before the CIT(A). It also filed an application for condonation of delay before the CIT(E). The CIT(E) rejected the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay for 133 days

Vipul Arjanbhai Parmar, Mangrol vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Junagadh

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.217/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 बनाम/ Vipul Arjanbhai Parmar Income Tax Officer Vs C/O. Sarda & Sarda (Ca), Sakar, Ward – 1, Junagadh 1St Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Opp. Rajkumar College, Rajkot, Gujarat - 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ditpp9286B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 766 days. The assessee has moved a petition for condonation of delay, requesting Bench to condone the delay. The Ld.Counsel argued that tax consultant of the assessee, did not handle the matter of the assessee properly, therefore delay has resulted ... resulted which may kindly be condoned. 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay and stated that such huge delay should not be condoned, as the assessee has completely failed to explain the sufficient cause. The 2 Vipul

Ashish Kumar, Shravasti vs. ITO-1, Bahraich

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

ITA 736/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ashish Kumar V. The Ito-1 S/O Onkar Nath, Bardehra Bahraich Bharigan, Pathpur, Ekauna Shravasti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Deqpk8563B (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Raghunath Mishra, 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 31.01.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.11,50,000/- In His Bank Account No.4666020000005 Maintained With Bank Of Baroda, Bahraich, During The Demonetization Period. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee To The Notice Issued Under

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 18.10.2025 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit and Medical Certificate, stating therein that the assessee was on complete bed rest from 25.03.2024 as advised by the Doctor ... objected to the delay being condoned. 5.0 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. 6.0 The Ld. A.R. submitted that the AO had passed the order under section

Narendra Singh Bisht, Gomtinagar vs. ACIT- 1, Lucknow-New, Lucknow

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

ITA 63/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.63/Lkw/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Narendra Singh Bisht V. Acit-1, Lucknow New 123, Khargapur, Gomtinagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Ashok Malesemau, Uttar Pradesh- Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226010. Pan:Aljpb0987D अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Ashwani Jaiswal, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04 11 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 12 2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 282Section 68

deleted.” 2. The present appeal is barred by limitation for 103 days. The assessee has filed petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the petition seeking condonation of delay and also the contents ... Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors 167 ITR 471 (SC) hereby condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 5. Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the assessment order was passed

Mrs. Ranjana, Mrizapur vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 505/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs Ranjana V. The Assessing Officer Village Dewapur Pachwal Nafc Post Rajapur, Aamghat Mirzapur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aoxpr7130M (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Narendra Kumar Sahu, 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 31.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Valued At Rs.60,00,000/- . The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, The Assessee Neither Responded To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Nor Filed Any Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 01.08.2025 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit of the assessee and Medical Certificate, stating therein that the assessee was suffering from severe illness and was under continuous medical ... objected to the delay being condoned. 4.1 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. 5.0 The Ld. A.R. submitted that the NFAC had erred in sustaining the addition to the extent

M.K. Wood Trading Corporation, Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 504/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 M. K. Wood Trading Corporation V. The Dcit/Acit-1 10, Basha Khera Lucknow New Takrohi, Indira Nagar Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aarfm2443G (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 07.08.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Timber Products. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 10.12.2020 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.54,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment And, Accordingly, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee. The Ao Finally Issued Show Cause Notice Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) Dated 21.3.2022, Vide Which The Ao

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 68

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 of the partner, Shri Mohammad Mustafa and also copy of order sheet dated 29.07.2025 of the Family Court, Lucknow, stating therein ... objected to the delay being condoned. 5.0 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. 6.0 During the course of hearing before me, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the NFAC had erred

Santosh Kumar Gupta, Lucknow vs. The Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi/ITO-1(4), Lucknow

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

ITA 498/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Santosh Kumar Gupta V. The Assessment Unit (Nfac) 624 61, Chinhat Ito 1(4), Lucknow Faizabad Road Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ahspg3013E (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Mahendra Kumar, Fca 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 29.05.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Carrying On The Business Of Mobiles, Electrical & Electronic Goods. 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 Of Rs.15,60,000/- During The Demonetization Period (From 09.11.2016 To 31.12.2016) In His Four Different Bank Accounts Bearing A/C Nos.20050580560 & 31121736248, Maintained With State Bank Of India, Chinhat Branch, Lucknow, A/C No.1840210572, Maintained With Central Bank Of India

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 28.07.2025 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit and Medical Certificate, stating therein that the assessee’s wife, Smt. Ruby Gupta had been suffering from serious Chronic Kidney disease ... objected to the delay being condoned. 5.0 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. ITA No.498/LKW/2025 Page 5 of 6 6.0 During the course of hearing before me, the Ld. Authorized Representative

Shubhanshu Agarwal, Bahraich vs. ITO-1, Bahraich

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

ITA 458/LKW/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2020-21 Shubhanshu Agarwal V. The Ito-1 C/O Shree Shyam Fertilizers Bahraich Shiv Nagar Bahraich (U/P) Tan/Pan:Bbhpa5931M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri B. P. Yadav, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B. P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

No.458/LKW/2025 Page 4 of 6 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 of the assessee, stating therein that the impugned order of the NFAC was neither served on the email ... objected to the delay being condoned. 2.5 In view of the prayer made by the Ld. A.R., we condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The Ld. A.R. submitted before us that the NFAC was not justified in dismissing the appeal