← 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

Karjala Seva Sahkari Mandli Limited, Amreli vs. The ITO Ward-3(1)(4), Rajkot-Amreli, Rajkot

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

ITA 423/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250

assessee for Assessment Year 2018-19, is barred by limitation by 240 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. Learned Counsel for the assessee, explains the reasons of delay stating that all notices issued during the course of CIT(A) proceedings, were sent ... Karjala Seva Sahkari Mandli Lid. 3. However, Id. Senior DR for the revenue argued that while deciding the prayer for condonation of delay, the court/appellate authority cannot ignore or give a go-by to the basic principle that the burden to prove the existence of sufficient cause is always

Vaghani Brothers, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(1), RKT, Rajkot

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

ITA 159/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.159/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) Vaghani Brothers Vs. The Ito, Ward – 2(1)(1), Rajkot Bus Stand Road, Nr. Buu Stand, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Dhoraji (Guj) - 360410 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfv5533C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav. Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

outset, that the appeal filed late by 309 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. That the relevant part of the application for delay, is as under: “3. The assesse filed a 1 appeal before the Ld.CIT (Appeals), NFAC

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Chaapeheda vs. Neac, Delhi

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

ITA 56/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

considering the benefit of extension of limitation granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessee sought condonation of delay on the plea that the assessment order came to its notice only when the Income Tax Officer, Rajgarh, asked the assessee ... explanation offered did not constitute sufficient cause for such an inordinate delay. The CIT(Appeals) relied upon various judicial pronouncements and held that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and that negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides on the part of the appellant disentitles it from

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Chaapeheda, Chhapiheda vs. Neac, Delhi

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

ITA 55/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

considering the benefit of extension of limitation granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessee sought condonation of delay on the plea that the assessment order came to its notice only when the Income Tax Officer, Rajgarh, asked the assessee ... explanation offered did not constitute sufficient cause for such an inordinate delay. The CIT(Appeals) relied upon various judicial pronouncements and held that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and that negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides on the part of the appellant disentitles it from

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Chaapeheda vs. Neac, Delhi

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

ITA 54/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

considering the benefit of extension of limitation granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessee sought condonation of delay on the plea that the assessment order came to its notice only when the Income Tax Officer, Rajgarh, asked the assessee ... explanation offered did not constitute sufficient cause for such an inordinate delay. The CIT(Appeals) relied upon various judicial pronouncements and held that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and that negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides on the part of the appellant disentitles it from

ACIT(Exemption), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Jamnagar Area Development Authority, Jamnagar

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

ITA 1823/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1822 & 1823/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2016-2017 & 2018-2019)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 250

assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), there was a delay of 13 days in filing of appeal. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing of the appeal, however, the CIT(A) rejected the condonation request submitted by the assessee and dismissed the appeal

ACIT(Exemption), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Jamnagar Area Development Authority, Jamnagar

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

ITA 1822/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1822 & 1823/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2016-2017 & 2018-2019)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 250

assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), there was a delay of 13 days in filing of appeal. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing of the appeal, however, the CIT(A) rejected the condonation request submitted by the assessee and dismissed the appeal

Earth Charitable Foundation, Pune vs. CIT(Exemtpiton), Pune

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

ITA 846/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 40Section 8

delay of 124 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. He submitted that the delay is not intentional and is a bonafide one for the reasons beyond ... control of the appellant. A prayer is made to Hon Income Tax appellate Tribunal Pune Bench in the interest of justice to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. 8. Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information and therefore

Shrivardhan Biotech Private Limited, Kondigre vs. Income Tax Office, Ichalkaranji

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

ITA 2191/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)

There is a delay of 115 days in filing of the instant appeal. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After hearing both the sides and considering the contents of the affidavit, we find that the delay ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), condone the delay of 115 days in filing of the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the same. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that assessee is a company, engaged in the business of marketing

Rohini Maruti Deshmukh, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1839/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 1918 days in each of the appeal. Assessees have filed applications for condonation of delay along with affidavits. The common reasons for delay mentioned therein are mainly due to Covid-19 pandemic, due to which, the appeals could ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), we hereby condone the delay of 1918 days in filing of each of the instant appeals before this Tribunal and admit these appeals for adjudication. 3 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh

Tulsabai Vasant Deshmukh, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1838/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 1918 days in each of the appeal. Assessees have filed applications for condonation of delay along with affidavits. The common reasons for delay mentioned therein are mainly due to Covid-19 pandemic, due to which, the appeals could ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), we hereby condone the delay of 1918 days in filing of each of the instant appeals before this Tribunal and admit these appeals for adjudication. 3 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh

Amol Vasant Deshmukh, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1837/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 1918 days in each of the appeal. Assessees have filed applications for condonation of delay along with affidavits. The common reasons for delay mentioned therein are mainly due to Covid-19 pandemic, due to which, the appeals could ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), we hereby condone the delay of 1918 days in filing of each of the instant appeals before this Tribunal and admit these appeals for adjudication. 3 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Century Aluminium Mfg Company Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2229/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-13(1), Kolkata……….……………… …………….……….……Appellant Vs. Century Aluminium Mfg Company Ltd..…….………….......……...…..…..Respondent Raja Road, P.O. Sukchar, Barrackpur-Ii, 24 Parganas, W.B-700115.. [Pan: Aabcc2200Q] Appearances By: Shri Pradeep Dung Dung, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.07.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 25 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits. Century Aluminium Mfg Company Ltd

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 148Section 194ASection 250

days. The revenue has filed a petition for condonation of the delay. After considering the reasons cited in the petition for condonation of delay, we find that the reasons are valid and consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Bentec India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1776/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle -1(1), Kolkata.…..………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Bentec India Ltd………………. ………..…………...……………………..…..Respondent Phase-Ii, Kasba Industrial Estates, Plot No.11, Kol-700107.. [Pan: Aabcb0647G] Appearances By: Pradeep Dung Dung, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Manish Tiwari, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.11.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 186 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 68

days. The revenue has filed a petition for condonation of the delay. After considering the reasons cited in the petition for condonation of delay, we find that the reasons are valid and consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal

M/S B.N. Dutta, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT, Cir. 2, Durgapur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 705/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.705/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S B. N. Dutta ….…………………………………………………..………….……Appellant Head Office: 518, G Road, Sonari West Layout, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand – 831011. [Pan: Aadfb0648J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Durgapur……..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. Khasnobis, Ca & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri H. Robindro Singh, Addl. Cit - Dr & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 & December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 13.02.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Indore [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Partnership Firm & Engaged In The Business Of Civil Construction & Maintenance Of Civil Structures Inside Stell Plants. For The Assessment Year 2011-12, The Assessee Filed Its Return On 30.09.2011 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.36,58,080/- & Total Tax & Cess Liability Of Rs.11,30,347/- Was Discharged In Full Resulting In A Refund Of Rs.12,520/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed By The Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 27.01.2012. The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Information From The Cpc Either Directly By Way Of Service Of Physical Copy Of The Same Or From The Then Authorised Representative Namely Mr. S. N. Gupta. Due To Non-Receipt Of

Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

Aggrieved by the order of the CPC, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal together with an affidavit duly sworn by one of working partner explaining reason for delay of 7 years 6 months ... order of the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “4.8 From the above decisions, it becomes clear that in the case of condonation of delay where the appeal was filed beyond the limitation of period, the courts are empowered to condone the delay, provided that the appellant can prove

Aravindan Rengasamy, Chennai vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3297/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3297/Chny/2025 & S.A No.115/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Aravindan Rengasamy, The Asst. Commissioner Of Income C/O. Sundaram & Narayanan, Vs. Tax (International Taxation), Chartered Accountants, Madurai. 18 Balaiah Avenune, Luz Churchroad, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Apupr 6827B

For Appellant: Mr.K. Meenakshi Sundaram, C.A *+For Respondent: Ms. E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee filed an affidavit in this regard. The assessee in the petition for condonation of delay has submitted that the assessee has filed the appeal against the final order of assessment inadvertently before the CIT(A). The assessee further submits ... Tribunal is not intentional and prayed that the delay may be condoned. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the condonation of delay. 5. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause

Raju Chandrasekar, Oduvanpatti, Tiruppattur (Tk) vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Karaikudi, Sekkalai Road

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

ITA 3000/CHNY/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3000/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

There is a delay of 28 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with the supporting affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. On perusal of the reasons stated in the affidavit ... view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. At the very out, we notice that the assessee has filed a legal ground

Haridoss Gnanaprakasam, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Circle-22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 2263/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2263/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. R. Raj Kapoor, C.A ()For Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT
Section 250

There is a delay of 74 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. It is stated in the affidavit that the delay is due to the fact that the consultant engaged by the assessee to take care ... assessee has engaged a new Consultant and with his support the present appeal is filed before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the assessee prayed for condonation of delay as the reasons for delay is unintentional and bonafide. 4. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record

C-2016 Itchiputhur Paccs, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

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

ITA 2191/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2191/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 C-2016 Itchiputhur Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Coop. Credit Society, 12Th Road, Ward 1, Itchiputhur Village, Arakkonam Tk, Vellore. Vellore 631 003. [Pan: Aabac1870C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Babitha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 5 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, In 2

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80P(2)(a)

year 2019-20. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 5 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, in 2 I.T.A. No.2191/Chny/25 the interest of justice ... condone the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the ld. AR Shri J.Saravanan, Advocate drew our attention to the application dated 08.12.2025, which was filed with ITAT Registry on 09.12.2025 and submits that the assessee raised additional ground of appeal

Syed Nazeer Syed Fayaz, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

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

ITA 2189/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2189/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250

accept the submissions of the assessee and dismissed the appeal stating that there was no sufficient cause demonstrated by the assessee to condone the delay. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the FAA. 5. We have heard the parties and perused the materials available ... rectification order separately. Before proceeding further, we will look at some of the legal dictum laid down with regard to the issue of condonation of delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) while considering the issue