← 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

Raj Kumar Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Patna

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

ITA 341/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 250

delay of 224 days in filing of this appeal, which has been requested to be condoned by the assessee by an application for condonation of delay as under: “Most respectfully the petitioner be get to stay as under; The impugned assessment order was served on the appeal

Ipf Vikram India Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Panchkula

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

ITA 1204/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

assessee filed a condonation application along with an affidavit seeking condonation of the said delay. 3. The Ld. DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay. 4. We have considered the condonation application filed by the assessee and the submissions made by both the parties. The assessee has explained that

Loksakha Welfare Society, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 1883/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Registry has informed that both the appeals filed by the assessee are barred by limitation by 112 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kolkata ('CIT(E)'), has passed the order dated 22 February ... alternate course/route was identified by the other consultant in the month of July 2025. 9. Therefore, we humbly request you to kindly condone the delay in filing the present appeal, which was purely due to lack of understanding of the correct procedure in response to such technical rejection, and adjudicate

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Ishana Projects Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1775/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathanand

For Respondent: Shri Subrata Aich, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 127Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 147

filed belatedly by 05 days each. In this regard, the revenue has filed affidavit in both the appeals stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. Considering facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons stated in the affidavit, we condone the delay of 05 days each in both

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Ishana Projects Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1774/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1774 & 1775/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Vs Ishana Projects Private Limited, Kolkata 4, Block 1 Unit 7(O), Chowringhee Lane, Park Street, Kolkata-700016 Pan No. :Aahcm 4897 K (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Rastogi, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subrata Aich, Jcit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Kolkata-27, Both Dated 15.04.2025 For The Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Both Appeals Of The Revenue Are Filed Belatedly By 05 Days Each. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavit In Both The Appeals Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay. Considering Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Reasons Stated In The Affidavit, We Condone The Delay Of 05 Days Each In Both The Appeals Of The Revenue & Both The Appeals Are Admitted For Hearing. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Sr.Dr That The Assessee Being Energy Commodity Private Limited Was Involved In Sale Of Bogus Investments. It Was Submission That Consequently Reopening Had Been Done By Issuance Of Notice 148 Of The Act On 10/01/2024 & The Reasons Were Recorded & In The Assessee’S Paper Book At Pages 146 To 167 Which Reads As Follows:-

For Respondent: Shri Subrata Aich, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

filed belatedly by 05 days each. In this regard, the revenue has filed affidavit in both the appeals stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. Considering facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons stated in the affidavit, we condone the delay of 05 days each in both

Sathankulam Taluk Teacher Co-Operative Thift and Credit Society, Tuticorin vs. ACIT, Tuticorin

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn and SA 72/Chny/2025 is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2127/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2127/Chny/2025 & Sa No.72/Chny/2025 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sathankulam Taluk Teacher Co- The Income Tax Officer, Operative Thrift & Credit Society Vs. Che-W-(513)(93), Tb69, Chennai. Rep. By Its Secretary, Mr. P. Muthukumar, No.13, Kollar Mudukku Street, Sathankulam, Tuticorin District – 628 704. Pan: Abbfs 4305C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.V.Paarkavi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 80P

outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has filed order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the ld. CCIT, Madurai rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay in filing return of income to claim deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ in short]. In the light of the order ... assessee. 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the ld. CCIT, Madurai rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay in filing return of income to claim deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act. Ld.DR also has no objection to withdrawing appeal

Jagathesh, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1566/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 183Section 197Section 271ASection 69A

ld.CIT(A), NFAC. The said appeal was however filed with a delay of 677 days. The appeal was accompanied by a petition to condone the delay in the form of an affidavit from the assessee, filed before the ld.CIT(A). 8. The main reason given for the delay in filing ... were bright chances of getting relief from the appellate authorities. Accordingly, I have decided to file the appeal belatedly with the petition for condonation of delay 8. In view of the above, the delay in filing this appeal is on account of wrong advice given by the Chartered Accountant

Jagathesh, Chennai vs. Aacit, Ncc-11(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1565/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 183Section 197Section 271ASection 69A

ld.CIT(A), NFAC. The said appeal was however filed with a delay of 677 days. The appeal was accompanied by a petition to condone the delay in the form of an affidavit from the assessee, filed before the ld.CIT(A). 8. The main reason given for the delay in filing ... were bright chances of getting relief from the appellate authorities. Accordingly, I have decided to file the appeal belatedly with the petition for condonation of delay 8. In view of the above, the delay in filing this appeal is on account of wrong advice given by the Chartered Accountant

Meera Prakash Tewani, United Kingdom vs. DCIT, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 5751/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrymeera Prakash Tewani Dcit, C-41-43 12, David Way, Bishopton Bkc, Gilban Area Startford Upon Avon, Cv370Ug, Vs. Bandra East United Kingdom Mumbai-400 051. Uk-999 999 Pan : Abjpt5911D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Rupal Shrimal Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 Date Of : 30/12/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) :-

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal ShrimalFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K
Section 144Section 147Section 69C

also been expired. Thus, the assessee was prevented from filing of relevant appeal before Ld. Commissioner within time and assessee therefore prayed for condonation of delay. 4. The Ld. Commissioner though considered the aforesaid claim and prayer of the assessee, however declined to accept the same and ultimately dismissed ... assumed that the delay if any in service was because of failure on the part of the assessee. This request for condonation of delay is therefore not found to be acceptable”. 5. Having heard the parties and giving thoughtful consideration to the material available on record and rival submissions

Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Malpani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5023/MUM/2025[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year : 2015-16 Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Income Tax Officer, Malpani, Ward-41(4)(2), 502, 5Th Floor,Sea View Chs, Vs. R.No. 116,Kautilya Bhawan, Near Ram Mandir Temple, C-41 To C-43,G Block, Bkc, Bangur Nagar,Goregaon (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400090. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadpm9211C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. Ar For Revenue : Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Againstthe Order Dated 28-06-2024 Impugned Herein Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short “Ld.Commissioner”) U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The Ay. 2015-16. 2 2. At The Outset It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 346 days in filing the instant appeal on which the assessee has claimed as under: “This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal for the facts and circumstances as set out herein: 1. The Applicant had filed an appeal to the ld. Addl/Jt.CIT, NFAC ... first respond to the letter dt.04.08.2025 of the VU and then to file appeal before the Hon. ITAT immediately with an application for condonation of delay. 7. Accordingly the appeal is now being filed which is belated by 346 days. The impugned appeal is thus delayed on account

Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Mulund vs. ITO Ward 27(1)(1), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4981/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Ito Ward 27 (1) (1), 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Tower 6, Vashi Station Ambedkar, Road Opp. Balaji Vs. Complex, Navi Mumbai – Temple, Mulund West, Mumbai 400703. – 400080. Pan – Agvps 7279 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna, Ca (Virtually Appear) Revenue By : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 281 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under :- Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay 1, Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Age About 45 Years, Residing At 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Ambedkar Road, Opp Balaji Temple

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, SR. D.R
Section 250

that there is a delay of 281 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the Assessee has claimed as under :- AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY 1, Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, age about 45 years, residing at 5th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Ambedkar Road, Opp Balaji Temple, 2 Mrs. Deepali ... above appeal, and I am fully conversant with the facts of the case and competent to swear this affidavit for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. That in the case of my husband, Shri Vikky Ajmera, for the same

Rekha Kishore Shah (Legal Heir of Kishor Dhirajlal Shah ), Mumbai vs. ACIT-42(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4409/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Malav P. ShethFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 147Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

decisions merely uploading the communications on e-portal does not constitute a valid service. In view of such explanations, it is prayed to condone the delay in filing of appeal. Considering the aforesaid request of the assessee, having sufficient unintentional / undeliberate reasons for delay beyond the control of assessee ... absence of any serious objection by the revenue, following the judicial principle to deal with the matter of condonation of delay with a liberal and justice-oriented approach, we find it appropriate to condone the delay in present matter to decide the same on its merits. The delay in filing

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3955/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)

Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai (in short „the Ld. AO‟). ITA no. 3862, 3950, 3951,3952, 3953,3954 & 3955/MUM/2025 Mohammad Saleem Condonation of Delay: 2. The captioned appeals are time barred being filed with a delay of 120 days. In explanation for sufficient in intentional cause beyond ... records suggests any intentional or deliberate attempt of the assessee to delay the filing of appeal. We, thus, in the interest of justice condone the delay in filing of aforesaid appeals, so as proceed to adjudicate the same in terms of grounds of appeal raised therein. 4. All the aforesaid

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3954/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
Section 153CSection 250Section 254(1)

Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai (in short 'the Ld. AO'). ITA no. 3862, 3950, 3951,3952, 3953,3954 & 3955/MUM/2025 Mohammad Saleem Condonation of Delay: 2. The captioned appeals are time barred being filed with a delay of 120 days. In explanation for sufficient in intentional cause beyond ... Members, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai IN RE: MOHAMMAD SALEEM PAN: BIHPS6247K ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 to 2019-20 Subject: - Application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeals before the Hon'ble Tribunal, the appeals being filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi under

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3953/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)

Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai (in short „the Ld. AO‟). ITA no. 3862, 3950, 3951,3952, 3953,3954 & 3955/MUM/2025 Mohammad Saleem Condonation of Delay: 2. The captioned appeals are time barred being filed with a delay of 120 days. In explanation for sufficient in intentional cause beyond ... records suggests any intentional or deliberate attempt of the assessee to delay the filing of appeal. We, thus, in the interest of justice condone the delay in filing of aforesaid appeals, so as proceed to adjudicate the same in terms of grounds of appeal raised therein. 4. All the aforesaid

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3952/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)

Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai (in short „the Ld. AO‟). ITA no. 3862, 3950, 3951,3952, 3953,3954 & 3955/MUM/2025 Mohammad Saleem Condonation of Delay: 2. The captioned appeals are time barred being filed with a delay of 120 days. In explanation for sufficient in intentional cause beyond ... records suggests any intentional or deliberate attempt of the assessee to delay the filing of appeal. We, thus, in the interest of justice condone the delay in filing of aforesaid appeals, so as proceed to adjudicate the same in terms of grounds of appeal raised therein. 4. All the aforesaid

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3951/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
Section 153CSection 250Section 254(1)

Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai (in short 'the Ld. AO'). ITA no. 3862, 3950, 3951,3952, 3953,3954 & 3955/MUM/2025 Mohammad Saleem Condonation of Delay: 2. The captioned appeals are time barred being filed with a delay of 120 days. In explanation for sufficient in intentional cause beyond ... Members, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai MOHAMMAD SALEEM IN RE: PAN: BIHPS6247K ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 to 2019-20 Subject: - Application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeals before the Hon'ble Tribunal, Mumbai against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi under section

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3950/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2014-15
Section 153CSection 250Section 254(1)

Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai (in short 'the Ld. AO'). ITA no. 3862, 3950, 3951,3952, 3953,3954 & 3955/MUM/2025 Mohammad Saleem Condonation of Delay: 2. The captioned appeals are time barred being filed with a delay of 120 days. In explanation for sufficient in intentional cause beyond ... Members, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai MOHAMMAD SALEEM BIHPS6247K ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 to 2019-20 IN RE: Subject: Application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeals before the Hon'ble Tribunal (CIT(A)'s), Mumbai against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi under section

Mohammad Saleem, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3862/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2013-14
Section 153CSection 250Section 254(1)

Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai (in short 'the Ld. AO'). ITA no. 3862, 3950, 3951,3952, 3953,3954 & 3955/MUM/2025 Mohammad Saleem Condonation of Delay: 2. The captioned appeals are time barred being filed with a delay of 120 days. In explanation for sufficient in intentional cause beyond ... Members, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai IN RE: MOHAMMAD SALEEM PAN: BIHPS6247K ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 to 2019-20 Subject: Application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeals before the Hon'ble Tribunal, in respect of the Appeals against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

Shri Rahul Sumerchand Dodal L/H Shri Sumerchand R Dodal, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed, however with liberty as mentioned above

ITA 2328/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 250

observed that there is a delay of 643 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the assessee by filling an application for condonation of delay, has claimed as under: 2 “1. The assessee submits that in the present case, the appellate order u/s 250 passed