← 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

Medical Educational & Cultural Development Society, Kanpur vs. ITO (Exemption), Kanpur

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 653/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44A

that the requisite form, i.e., Form 10B was filed after the due date. It was submitted that the assessee had filed applications for condonation of delay in filing the Audit Report in Form 10B before the CIT (Exemption). However, the CPC, Bangalore, without condoning the delay, had ITA Nos.651 ... matter in the years under consideration may be restored to the file of the AO with a direction to await the directions for condonation of delay in filing the Audit Report in Form 10B since the issue of condonation of delay was now pending before the Ld. Principal Chief Commissioner

Medical Educational & Culture Development Society, Kanpur vs. ITO (Exemption), Kanpur

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 652/LKW/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44A

that the requisite form, i.e., Form 10B was filed after the due date. It was submitted that the assessee had filed applications for condonation of delay in filing the Audit Report in Form 10B before the CIT (Exemption). However, the CPC, Bangalore, without condoning the delay, had ITA Nos.651 ... matter in the years under consideration may be restored to the file of the AO with a direction to await the directions for condonation of delay in filing the Audit Report in Form 10B since the issue of condonation of delay was now pending before the Ld. Principal Chief Commissioner

Medical Educational & Cultural Development Society, Kanpur vs. ITO (Exemption), Kanpur

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 651/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44A

that the requisite form, i.e., Form 10B was filed after the due date. It was submitted that the assessee had filed applications for condonation of delay in filing the Audit Report in Form 10B before the CIT (Exemption). However, the CPC, Bangalore, without condoning the delay, had ITA Nos.651 ... matter in the years under consideration may be restored to the file of the AO with a direction to await the directions for condonation of delay in filing the Audit Report in Form 10B since the issue of condonation of delay was now pending before the Ld. Principal Chief Commissioner

District Co-Opertive Sugar Cane Supply Ltd., Bareilly vs. ITO Range-1-1, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 617/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President)

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

reasons relied upon by CIT (A).” 2. The present appeal is barred by 46 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the application seeking condonation of delay and also ... been instructed to file the appeal, could not do so within the stipulated period. Looking to the averments made in the application for condonation of delay along with the supporting affidavit, I am of the considered view that there was a reasonable and sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from

Income Tax Officer, Murshidabad vs. Chunakhali Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samiti Limited, Murshidabad

ITA 803/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148ASection 250

Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 503 days. The Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the appeal could not be filed on or before the due date due to huge work load relating to time barring scrutiny assessments ... Revenue had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That

DCIT, Kolkata vs. Sujit Arya, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 751/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Sujit Arya Dcit P-3, Paramathesh Barun Sarani, 3, Govt Place West, Kolkata- New Cit Road, Central Metro, Vs. 700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700073, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Actpa8796J Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 133A

accordingly, the delay may be condoned being for genuine and bonafide reasons. The ld. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. Sujit Arya

Rina Ray, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Darjeeling

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

ITA 2262/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2262/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Rina Ray,………….………………….………...……Appellant C/O. Amit Kumar Ray, St. Josoph School Road, Matigara, Siliguri-734010, West Bengal [Pan:Bhipr4602M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-3(2), Darjeeling, 27/19, Ajc Bose Road, Near Lal Kuthi, P.O. & P.S. Darjeeling, Darjeeling-734101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu, Advocate & Shri Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 148Section 45Section 50CSection 54E

Appeals). The appeal is time-barred by 189 days before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and assessee failed to file any application for condonation of delay. The ld. 1st Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal of the assessee simply for non-filing of condonation petition within the stipulated period of time ... Appeals). 6. I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has not condoned the delay of 189 days and dismissed the appeal in limine. On this aspect, the main contention of the assessee is that she has not received the assessment

Ashok Prasad Gupta, North Dinajpur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(4), Raiganj

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1848/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1848/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Ashok Prasad Gupta,………………………….…Appellant C/O. Daspara C.S. Shop, Daspara B.O., Chopra, North Dinajpur-733207, W.B. [Pan:Bfepg3955G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-2(4), Raiganj, Income Tax Office, Karnajora, Rajganj-733130, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu, Advocate & Shri Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 270A(1)

assessee filed an 1 Ashok Prasad Gupta affidavit dated 18.08.2025 as well as petition dated 19.08.2025 before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 200 days mentioning that he has no knowledge about the e-filing portal of the income tax department and was not aware ... Tribunal and there was no fault or in action on his part in filing the appeal in time. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within

DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. Hindusthan National Glass and Industrieslimited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 338/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148ASection 14ASection 250

days of delay is not mentioned. However, along with the appeal memo, the Assessing Officer (“the Ld. AO”) has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The reasons mentioned are that the ASR was submitted for approval of the PCIT for filing the appeal before the Tribunal but was submitted ... after merger, records were very difficult to trace out and the relevant record was found on 26/12/2023. Therefore, it has been requested to condone the delay of 140 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal for the sake of substantial justice. On going through the application, we are satisfied that

ITO, Ward-8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Sarga Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 665/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

informed that the both the appeals are delayed by 49 days. Along with the appeal memo, the Revenue has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The reasons mentioned are I.T.A. Nos.: 664 & 665/KOL/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Sarga Hotel Private Limited that

I.T.O, Ward-8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Sarga Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Salt Lake

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 664/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

informed that the both the appeals are delayed by 49 days. Along with the appeal memo, the Revenue has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The reasons mentioned are that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed the order in Appeal No ITRAINFAC/S/250/2022-23/1050830338(1) on 16.03.2023 through ITBA

Shree Saraswathi Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hubli

ITA 618/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

delay in filing of the Appeal is because of the sufficient cause. The Assessee also filed an Affidavit along with accompanying application for condonation of delay. The reason stated by the Assessee in application for condonation of delay was stated to be that in fact the date of receipt

Shree Saraswathi Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hubli

ITA 617/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

delay in filing of the Appeal is because of the sufficient cause. The Assessee also filed an Affidavit along with accompanying application for condonation of delay. The reason stated by the Assessee in application for condonation of delay was stated to be that in fact the date of receipt

Santosh Kumar Ramlaxman Yadav, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5123/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 144Section 148Section 151ASection 69

Nothing to establish any such intention has been filed by the revenue before this Tribunal. In our opinion there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported ... Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered a situation of condonation of delay and held that where there exists a reasonable cause, period of delay may not be a relevant factor. Hon’ble Madras High Court relying on this

Alpha Charitable Trust, Thane vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

In the result grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 455/MUM/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms.Padmavathy Salpha Charitable Trust, Commissioner Of Income H. No.453, Ghosar Wadi, Tax (Exemption), Room No.322, 3Rd Floor, Income Bhandar Aali, Bhuigaon-West, Vs. Bhuigaon Bk, Bhuigaon B.O, Tax Office, Pmt Building, Thane. Shankar Seth Road, Pan – Aaita4259M Pune-411037. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke (Virtually Appear)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)
Section 12A

there is delay of 656 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Alpha Charitable Trust, Thane The appellant-Trust has filed application for condonation of delay, which is supported by the affidavit of Amis Michael Lopes, Managing-Trustee of the Assessee. In the application, the appellant /assessee submitted that they ... other hand, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-Departmental Representative (ld CIT-DR) for the Revenue, on the plea of condonation of delay of Assessee submits that Assessee has not explained the delay in proper manner. The delay is not ordinary. The Assessee has disclosed a self-serving story

J. M. Housing Limited, Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (Central) Knp Meerut, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8248/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] J.M. Housing Limited, Pr.Cit (Central) Kanpur, At Meerut, 312/3T/F5 Pratap Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Bhainsali Ground, Bhahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Vs Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-25001 Central Delhi, Delhi-11002 Pan-Aaccj1692E Assessee Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 68

willful nor wanton. The assessee submitted that there will not be case of any non- compliance now. The Ld. DR objected to the condonation of delay. It was argued that no case is made out by the assessee to justify the delay. We have considered the justification put forth ... with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee through grounds of appeal no.1 to 6 is regarding invocation

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi

ITA 5417/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

5417/Del/2017 along with other cases considered and found to be justified. The ld. Counsel for the assessee did not oppose the condonation of delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay in the appeals of the Revenue and proceed to adjudicate the same. 3. Both the contesting parties have informed that

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi

ITA 5416/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

5417/Del/2017 along with other cases considered and found to be justified. The ld. Counsel for the assessee did not oppose the condonation of delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay in the appeals of the Revenue and proceed to adjudicate the same. 3. Both the contesting parties have informed that

ACIT Circle 1, Trichy vs. Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd., Dalmiapuram

ITA 3158/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

5417/Del/2017 along with other cases considered and found to be justified. The ld. Counsel for the assessee did not oppose the condonation of delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay in the appeals of the Revenue and proceed to adjudicate the same. 3. Both the contesting parties have informed that

ACIT Circle 1, Trichy vs. Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd., Dalmiapuram

ITA 3157/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

5417/Del/2017 along with other cases considered and found to be justified. The ld. Counsel for the assessee did not oppose the condonation of delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay in the appeals of the Revenue and proceed to adjudicate the same. 3. Both the contesting parties have informed that