← 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

Shree Vindhya Cast Coaters Limited, Jalgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Office, B.J.Market

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1116/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Anand Karnani (Virtual)For Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil
Section 234E

234E and interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeals of the assessee for non-condonation of delay in filing the appeals before him without deciding the issue(s) on merits on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate that ... Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC providing the detailed reasoning for delay in filing the appeals (pages 1 to 63 of the paper book refers

Vasavi Club, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 994/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 115TSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

assessee filed appeal on 08.08.2023 against the assessment order dated 20.04.2021 with a delay of 810 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay stating that, the delay occurred due to mistake committed by the tax consultant, non-communication of notices and passing of assessment order and that ... charitable institution and that the affairs are managed by members on honorary basis. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the petition for condonation of delay and the submissions made by the assessee, and after taking note of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

ITO., Ward 14(1), Hyderabad vs. Joshita Infra Developers LLP, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 672/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 44A

justice. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.A. on the other hand, did not strongly oppose the condonation of delay in view of the administrative and personal reasons explained by the Revenue. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the petition and affidavit ... filed by the Revenue seeking condonation of delay of 168 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. We find that, the reasons explained by the Revenue appear to be genuine and bonafide and constitute a reasonable cause. We further find that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Malireddi Srinath, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Hdyerabad, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1721/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 69A

appeal on 22.07.2025 against the assessment order dated 01.12.2023 with a delay of more than 18 months. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay stating that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was not received ... after receipt of communication from the Income Tax Department regarding recovery of outstanding demand. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the petition for condonation of delay and the submissions made by the assessee, held that the appeal was filed 4 Malreddy Srinath beyond the period prescribed under Section

G K Constructions.Co, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1608/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1608/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 G K Constructions Co. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 050. Vs. Ward-8(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aapfg7527F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca C. Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: G Saratha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA C. Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: G Saratha, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69

facts as well as in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal solely rejecting the petition for condonation of delay, as the delay was caused by genuine and Bonafide reasons, which are clearly explained before ... also a reason for non-communication of the assessment order to the assessee and, therefore, the learned CIT(A) ought to have condone the delay in filing the appeal. Thus, he has pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) may be condoned and since

Joshita Infra Developers LLP, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1055/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 44A

justice. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.A. on the other hand, did not strongly oppose the condonation of delay in view of the administrative and personal reasons explained by the Revenue. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the petition and affidavit ... filed by the Revenue seeking condonation of delay of 168 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. We find that, the reasons explained by the Revenue appear to be genuine and bonafide and constitute a reasonable cause. We further find that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Krishnakumar Manda, Medchal vs. DCIT., Circle-12(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1017/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 1016 & 1017/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22) Shri Krishnakumar Manda, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Medchal Income Tax Pan:Bmspm9739D Circle 12(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Phaneendra Nag, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Phaneendra Nag, CAFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 2Section 250Section 69

admitted in the interest of justice. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay and left the matter to the discretion of the Tribunal. 4. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record ... Shankar Jaiswal v. CIT (174 taxmann.com 21), has held that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay. Respectfully following the said principle, we condone the delay of 72 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. Page

Krishnakumar Manda, Medchal vs. DCIT., Circle-12(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1016/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 1016 & 1017/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22) Shri Krishnakumar Manda, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Medchal Income Tax Pan:Bmspm9739D Circle 12(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Phaneendra Nag, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Phaneendra Nag, CAFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 2Section 250Section 69

admitted in the interest of justice. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay and left the matter to the discretion of the Tribunal. 4. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record ... Shankar Jaiswal v. CIT (174 taxmann.com 21), has held that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay. Respectfully following the said principle, we condone the delay of 72 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. Page

N N Detonators Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-16(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1215/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Through Its Director, Shri A. Vijay Kumar, Explaining The Reasons For The Delay Stating That, An Appellate Order Dated 18.06.2024 Was Passed In Its Case For A.Y. 2017-18 Confirming An Addition Of Rs. 57,00,000/-. The Assessee Submitted That, The Company Did Not Receive Any Intimation Regarding Passing Of The Appellate Order Either Through Email Or Sms, Which, According To The Assessee, Was Due To Technical Issues. Subsequently, The Assessee Came To Know About The Appellate Order Only After The A.O. Passed A Consequential Order Dated 12.11.2024 Giving Effect To The Appellate Order.

Section 143(3)

interest of justice. 4. The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Ms. Krithika Jaiswal, on the other hand, did not strongly oppose the condonation of delay in filing the appeal in view of the reasons explained by the assessee in the affidavit. 5. We have heard both the parties ... perused the petition and affidavit filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay of 87 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. We find that, the reasons explained by the assessee appear to be genuine and bonafide and come under reasonable cause. We further find that

Khemka Charity Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO(Exemption), Ward 1(4), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 142/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Processing Of Return Of Income U/S 143(1) Of The Act.

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 251

exemption u/s 11 of the Act is not allowable as Form 10B is not filed within the due date and there is no condonation of delay from Ld. CIT(Exemption). Therefore, ld CIT(A) justified the disallowance of application of funds at Rs. 8,17,000/- and accumulation of funds ... obtained report in Form 10B on 25.09.2018, however form 10B was uploaded on ITBA system only on 27.06.2019. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay before CIT(E) on 12.12.2019. At the time of hearing, it was disclosed by ld. AR of the assessee that application for condonation

Bangalore Mallaiah Mallikarjunaiah, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1493/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 250

this Tribunal. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee drew our attention to an affidavit dated 4.7.2025 along with an application or condonation of delay in filing the appeal which are reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience: ee IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU ... APPELLANT AND Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle 3(2), Bengaluru Central Revenue Building, Queens Road, Bengaluru 560001 «ss. RESPONDENT APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL i. The present appeal is against the order of the CIT(A) dated 13/12/2024, which went unnoticed by the Appellant

Smt Suruchi Satish Sarmalkar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-32(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5942/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 154Section 250Section 270A

noticed that there is a delay in filing the present appeal and in this regard assessee has filed an application for seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal, which is reproduced herein below: I, Suruchi Satish Sarmalkar 75 years of age, (widow of late Shri Satish Ramchandra ... case on merits in the interest of justice. 6. Therefore, I humbly pray that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for hearing on its merits. No loss/ prejudice would be caused to the Respondent/ dept

Swapngandha Sanjay Parab, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4614/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 271A

appeal has been filed by assessee before this Tribunal with a delay of 51 days. The assessee has also furnished an application seeking condonation of delay wherein it is submitted that, assessee was in continue follow-up with the Ld.AR. however, due to year-end compliances and further overlapping professional ... 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

Devisingh, Noida vs. ITO Ward-5(1)(2), Noida

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

ITA 3360/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Devi Singh Vs. Ito Ward- 5 (1) (2) Vill- Sorkha Sector-115, Noida Noida G.B. Nagar, 21301 Pan No.Apypd3604C Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025

Section 144Section 148Section 69

awareness about faceless process of compliances. 7. The appellant is praying for one more opportunity for complying facts.” 2. The application for condonation of delay has been filed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee for the delay of 111 days. The Assessee in his application for the delay stated ... Assessee has put his thumb impression which show that he is an illiterate. In the interest of justice and fair play we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Coming to the merits of the appeal we find that the assessee has agitated

Brajesh Kumar Ahirwar, Jhansi vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhansi

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

ITA 491/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 144

pointed out a defect that appeal is time barred by 270 days. In response thereof, the Assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal on the ground that the assessee is a small farmer and also carries on a small kirana business from ... that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 3. I have heard ld. DR of the Revenue and perused the application for condonation of delay. In my considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, I condone the delay in filing

Sarif, Jalesar Etah vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-4(3)(1), Etah

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

ITA 464/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

first appeal preferred against the assessment order dated 22.05.2023 passed u/s. 147/144B of the Act, upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. Ld. CIT(Appeals), also dismissed assessee’s first ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 appeal preferred against the penalty order dated 21.02.2024 passed ... Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the same upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. 5. This second appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in rejecting assessee’s appeal upon rejection of assessee

Sarif, Jalesar, Etah vs. Assessin Officer, Ward-4(3)(1), Dinesh Nagar Etah

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

ITA 463/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

first appeal preferred against the assessment order dated 22.05.2023 passed u/s. 147/144B of the Act, upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. Ld. CIT(Appeals), also dismissed assessee’s first ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 appeal preferred against the penalty order dated 21.02.2024 passed ... Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the same upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. 5. This second appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in rejecting assessee’s appeal upon rejection of assessee

Om Prakash Agarwal, Mathura vs. ITO., Ward-3(3), Mathura

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 290/AGR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmanom Prakash Agarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (3), Prop. M/S. Khushboo Jewllers, Mathura. Shop No.133, Brijwasi Complex, Gurhai Bazar, Mathura – 281 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aawpa1280E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date Of Order : 18.12.2025 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Agra Dated 24.03.2017 For Ay 2007-08. 2. The Ld. Ar For The Assessee Has Submitted That Since The Assessee Has Settled The Issue Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (In Short ‘Vsvs’), Hence, The Assessee Wishes To Withdraw The Instant Appeal. In This Behalf, The Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That Requisite Forms Have Been Received From The Department Accepting The Declaration Filed By The Assessee & Filed Form 5 On Record. Ld. Dr Did Not Controvert The Aforesaid Proposition. In View Of The Aforesaid, Appeal Of The Assessee Is Dismissed As Withdrawn.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR

appeal in the event assessee’s declaration made under VSVS is not accepted, the Registry shall not insist for filing of application for condonation of delay, if the Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order is filed beyond time on account of delay in communication of outcome under VSVS. [Revenue

Shri Nitin Agarwal, Gwalior vs. ITO 3(2), Gwalior

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2/AGR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gargh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR

appeal in the event assessee’s declaration made under VSVS is not accepted, the Registry shall not insist for filing of application for condonation of delay, if the Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order is filed beyond time on account of delay in communication of outcome under VSVS. [Revenue

Shri Jasbir Singh Sahni, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Bathinda

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 45/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Salil Chopra (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144

other sources since the assessee failed to make any representation therein. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 302 days and against which the assessee is in further appeal before Tribunal. 3. Considering the guiding principles laid down