“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

C-2480 Elayangaram Paccs, Tirupattur vs. ITO, Tirupathur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4037/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4037/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 C-2480 Elayanagaram Assessment Unit, Primary Agricultural V Nfac, Income Tax Cooperative Credit Society, S. Department, Elayanagaram, Tirupattur. Ito-Che-W- Pan: Aahfc7142G (146)(2), Chennai. Appellant Respondent Assessee By Mr. Shyam Sundar – Ca Revenue By Ms. V Awasthay – Jcit Date Of Hearing 17/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2026 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Delhi [‘The Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69Section 80P(2)(a)

appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 164 days. The appellant also filed a petition before the ld.CIT(A) seeking the condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of the fact that the appellant was unaware of the assessment order ... perused the material available on records. The issue that arises for reconsideration is 7 whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in refusing the condonation of delay of 164 days in presenting appeal before him. There is no dispute that appellant that there was delay in filing the appeal before ld.CIT

Lakshmanappa Parameshwarappa Prakash, Chikkamagaluru vs. ACIT, Hassan

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

ITA 2271/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Roshan Manssor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 68

condoned in the interest of justice and the matter may be admitted for adjudication on merits. 7. The learned DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. It was submitted that the assessee has filed . ITA No.2271 /Bang/2025 Page 4 of 7 the appeal before ... outset, we note that the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 741 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay along with a medical certificate and supporting documents explaining the circumstances which led to the delay. The assessee has submitted that he was suffering

The Bombay Hindu Burning and Burial Grounds Committee, Mumbai vs. ITO Exe Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 9324/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 254(1)

raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Ground No 1 The Hon'ble CIT(A) NFAC, has erred in rejecting the petition for condonation of delay & Dismissing the appeal as time barred without taking into consideration the extension of time allowed by The Taxation & Other Laws (Relaxation & Amendment of Certain Provisions ... before the last extension prescribed under TOLA i.e by 31-05-2021. Relief Claimed The appellant trust humbly request you honor to condone the delay and consider the fact that the appeal was filed on 24-05-2021 before the last The Bombay Hindu Burning and Burial Grounds Committee extended

Rashtra Tej Manch, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

ITA 6957/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad (CIT

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

Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal not only considered the identical facts and circumstances but also various judgments concerning the issue and ultimately condoned the delay in filing of regular registration application u/s 80G of the Act, by observing and holding as under:- “13. Further with regard to whether the Tribunal ... condone the delay in filing the Form 10AB u/s 80G of the Act, the Ld. Coordinate Bench of ITAT Surat in Swach Vapi Mission Trust (supra) has held that the Tribunal is a final fact finding authority, and based on the assessee facts and undue hardship created by the clause

Roman Catholic Church of St. Joseph, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed, in the above terms

ITA 6930/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, & M.A.GohelFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad (Ld. CIT

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44A

filing of Form 10B belatedly, however, in that case the Assessee approached the Appropriate Authority u/s 119(2b) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing of Form 10B. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court by considering the issue, held as under: “That in the cases of delay ... availing of exemption should not be denied merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned. This Court in CIT Vs. Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj) has also held that

Zyka Merchandise Private Limited, Indore vs. ITO-13 (3) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4407/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: BEFORESHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Ambuselvan (SR AR)

Section 144Section 250

strongly relied upon and supported the orders of the revenue authorities. 4. Upon verification of the record, we find that no petition seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee. Further, the assessee has failed to explain any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal ... absence of any application for condonation of delay and any explanation 3 Zyka Merchandise P. Ltd. demonstrating sufficient cause, the appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication, as it has been filed beyond the prescribed limitation period by 97 days. Since no justifiable reason has been furnished by the assessee explaining

Northern Realty Infra Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

ITA 7434/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Hardeep Singh Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250

vide order dated 23.05.2023. 2. At the threshold, it is observed that the appeal is time-barred by 388 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee vide its application dated 17.11.2025. It has been explained therein that the assessee company has been struck

Jagat Singh, Khurja vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Bulandshahr

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

ITA 7428/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)Section 250Section 50CSection 54F

appeal, 28.01.2024, the assessee has filed the present appeal on 18.11.2025 i.e., after a delay of more than 21 months. Vide application for condonation of delay, it has been explained by the assessee that the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) had been filed on 24.12.2016 within due time, after which ... matter to the Ld. AO for fresh consideration. It has also been submitted by Ld. AR that circumstances explained in the affidavit for condonation of delay, no compliance could be made, as such the appeal was also dismissed ex-parte. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR has strongly relied

Vinay Kumar Singh, Noida vs. ITO Ward 5(2)5, Gautam Budha Nagar

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 6684/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.6683 & 6684/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Vinay Kumar Singh, Income Tax Officer, D-34, Sector-41, Noida, Vs. Ward 5(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh 201301, India. Gautam Budh Nagar, Pan No.Afpps6516P Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 5

pointed out that in both the appeals the Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the inadequacy of the reasons given for requesting condonation of delay. The Ld. DR pointed out pages 9 to 17 of the impugned order in ITA No.6684/Del/2025. Similarly in ITA 6683 the Ld. DR pointed ... considered the submissions of Ld. DR and have gone through the records before us.On aconsideration of the judicial precedents on the issue of condonation of delay, the following case laws would be relevant: “i. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 (SC) 3222, the Supreme Court of India

Vinay Kumar Singh, Noida vs. ITO Ward 5(2)(5), Gautam Budh Nagar

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 6683/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Section 250Section 5

Satish Chand Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. Assessing Officer, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6673/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6673/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Mr. Satish Chand Tyagi, Commissioner Of Income Tax 646, Village Morta,Meerut Road, Vs. (Appeals), Ghaziabad,Uttar Pradesh 201001. Income Tax Department,Delhi. Pan No.Aetpt1013R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250

MEMBER: 1. The present appeal is found to be delayed by 693 days for which the assessee has filed an affidavit requesting for condonation of delay as under: - “During Appellate proceeding: d. That the Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was ex-parte on 12.09.2023 against which the appellant

Supertech Ev Limited, Jhajjar vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Rohtak

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6603/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2024-25 Supertech Ev Limited Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru/ Ito Plot No.150 Sector 16 Exemptions Ward Rohtak Phase 1 Bahadurgarh Jhajjar Haryana-124507 Pan No.Abjcs1671E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 234B

Case Law Compilation (CLC)) wherein the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held as under – 19. “The arbitrary rejection of the condonation of delay in filing Form 10-IC are strongly supported by various judgments that widely interpret "genuine hardship" under Section ... impugned order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad is quashed and the respondent authority is directed to condone the delay in filing Form 10-IC and accept the said Form 10-IC. The respondent concerned is further directed to provide consequential relief to the petitioner

Anumod Sharma, Gurgoan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 16, Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 6319/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2017-18 Anumod Sharma, Vs Dcit, D-305A Laburnum Apartment, Central Circle-16, Sushant Lok, Delhi. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122002. Pan: Amyps5587L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

available on record.. We find that the appeal is barred by limitation by 554 days in support of which no application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee on record. Having regard to this particular aspect of the matter, we dismiss this appeal as barred

Narendra Pal Singh, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2583/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2583/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Narendra Pal Singh, Income Tax Officer, 3A, Divine Heritage Society, Vs. Cgo Complex, Kamla Nehru Gyan Khand Ii, Nagar Indirapuram,Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Hapur Road,Ghaziabad, 201010. Uttar Pradesh 201005. Pan No.Avqpp2801H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 249(3)Section 250

consulted its present Counsel CA Neelesh Kumar Jain and we have consulted then to filed the 1 Appeal along with an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal. Further, it is humbly submittal that the delay in submitting appeal is of 333 days may kindly be condoned since delay ... statutory time limit of filing the appeal. The appeal may kindly be heard on merit. Your Hon. is empowered u/s 249(3) for condoning the delay if the delay is explained with sufficient reasons. It has been consistent view of theHon’ble Courts that a liberal construction of the provisions

Rupesh Singh, Dehradun vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun

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

ITA 29/DDN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2020-21] Rupesh Singh Vs Dcit Old Post Office Road Dehradun Banjarawala, Kedarwala Uttarakhand Ajabpur, Dehradun Uttarakhand Pan-Bcfps3008C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Prashant Kochhar, Ca Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.09.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 06.01.20225 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. From The Perusal Of The Appellate Order, It Is Found That Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Admitted The Appeal As It Was Filed Delay By 50 Days Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Reasons Given In Delay Condonation Petition Was That Due To Ill Health Of The Previous Counsel, Delay Was Occurred In Searching & Appointing New Counsel. It Is Further Claimed That Assessee Is Unaware Of Any Communication, Notice & The Proceedings Initiated By The Department. Thus, Due To These Reasons, The Appeal Was Filed Delayed Before The Ld. Cit(A) By 50 Days. The Reason Being Sufficient, Therefore, It Was Prayed Before The Ld. Cit(A) To Condone The Delay & Decide The Appeal On Merits. It Is Further Observed That Despite Of Several Notices, Assessee Has Failed To Make Any Compliance Before The Ld. Cit(A).

Section 147Section 250

delayed before the Ld. CIT(A) by 50 days. The reason being sufficient, therefore, it was prayed before the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. It is further observed that despite of several notices, assessee has failed to make any compliance before ... Under these circumstances, we find that the reason given by the assessee for delay has sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) therefore the same is hereby condoned. Regarding merits of the appeal, it is observed AO has not made any compliance

Rai Sahab Bhaiyalal Dubey Educational and Medical Charitable Trust, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Jabalpur

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

ITA 186/JAB/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11ASection 12ASection 143(1)

before the Commissioner. CPC was therefore justified in disallowing the exemption u/s 11 as claimed in return. This authority has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing Form 10B. I.T.A. No.186/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2020-21 9 5.3 As regard appellant’s appeal against taxing the entire receipts instead ... instant case is whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee thereby condoning the delay in filing the Form 10B of the Act. The learned Tribunal after going through the facts of the case took note of the latter

Rajashree Annasaheb Patil, Belgaum, Karnataka vs. Kar-W-(521)(1), Belagavi

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

ITA 486/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.486/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2018-19) Rajashree Annasaheb Patil, I T O, Vs Near Murasidda Temple, National E Assessment . Gandhi Galli Bhiradi, Centre, Raybag,Belgaum-591217, Delhi Karnataka. Pan No. Ejfpp4199R (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 144

u/sec 250 of the Act. The assesse has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A)(i) not condoning the delay in filling the appeal before the CIT(A)and (ii) sustaining the addition of entire agricultural land sale consideration. 2 ITA. No.486/PAN/2025 Rajashree Annasaheb Patil ... reasons for no proper compliance. Whereas the affidavit and application u/sec 4 ITA. No.486/PAN/2025 Rajashree Annasaheb Patil. 249(3) of the Act for condonation of delay in filling the appeal was not filed before the CIT(A) by the assessee. Hence considering the facts, circumstances, submissions of the Ld.AR

Bhagat Singh Rawat, Lucknow vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru

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

ITA 911/LKW/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 253(3)

limit prescribed u/s 253(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). The assessee has submitted application, duly supported by affidavit, for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit ... appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in fling of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay in filing

Mehal Singh, Jhallian Khurd, Rupnagar vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Ropar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 806/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Cit(A), All The Notices & The Impugned Order Were Communicated At The Old Email Address Of The Earlier Counsel & Not At The Updated Email Address Furnished In The Income-Tax Records. Consequently, The Assessee Remained Unaware Of The Dismissal Of The Appeal & Came To Know About It Only When Recovery Proceedings Were Initiated. Immediately Thereafter He Consulted His Counsel & Steps Were Taken To File The Present Appeal. It Has Further Been Submitted That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen Suffering From Hypertension & Diabetes & Due To Medical Complications

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

noticed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 497 days. The assessee has moved an application supported by affidavit seeking condonation of delay. It has been explained that though the assessee had filed appeal before the CIT(A), all the notices and the impugned order were communicated

Manish N. Amin, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 88/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: Ground No. 1- Condonation of Delay Manish N. Amin Vs. ITO, AY- 2017-18 3 1. The appellant respectfully submits that the delay in filing the present appeal is due to non-communication