← 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

K1434 Senjerimalaiyadipalayam Primary Agricultural Co Opcredit Society, Coimbatore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 4(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 2179/CHNY/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2179/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 K1434 Senjerimalaiyadipalayam Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Co-Op. Credit Non Corporate Ward 4(1), Society, Malayadipalayam Post, Coimbatore. Sultanpet Via, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore 641 669. [Pan:Aabak0950D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Karunanandham, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Babitha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 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 10.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 462 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons.

For Appellant: Shri Karunanandham, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

year 2016-17. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 462 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. 2 I.T.A. No.2179/Chny/25 Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, in the interest of justice ... condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. It is noted that the return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. Thereafter, the case was selected for limited scrutiny. After following due procedure, the Assessing Officer

Rajasekaran Radhakrishnan, Chennai vs. ITO, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1420/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1419 & 1420/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Murali, C.A ()For Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT
Section 133ASection 250

condonation is filed by the assessee quoting the same reasons as in AY 2019-20. Since the facts are identical, our decision to condone the delay in AY 2019-20 is mutatis mutandis applicable to AY 2020-21 also. Accordingly the delay for AY 2020-21 is also condoned

Rajasekaran Radhakrishnan, Chennai vs. ITO, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1419/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1419 & 1420/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Murali, C.A ()For Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT
Section 133ASection 250

condonation is filed by the assessee quoting the same reasons as in AY 2019-20. Since the facts are identical, our decision to condone the delay in AY 2019-20 is mutatis mutandis applicable to AY 2020-21 also. Accordingly the delay for AY 2020-21 is also condoned

Asia Coke Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1403/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1403/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Asia Coke Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Bascon Futura Sv, 4Th Floor, Income Tax, Venkatanarayana Road, T. Nagar, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aakca4655Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. S. Sanchita, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E Pavuna Sundari, Cit 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 27.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 45 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: Ms. S. Sanchita, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69C

year 2018-19. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 45 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.1403/Chny/25 the interest of justice ... condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Ground No. 3 is raised challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in failing to appreciate the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], was issued by the JAO instead

Damyanti Shah, King Circle vs. Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1) Mumbai, Lalbaug

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

ITA 5879/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That A Detailed & Cogent Explanation Justifying The Delay In Filing Of The First Appeal Was Duly Placed On Record Before The Ld. Cit(A). It Has Been Contended That The Delay Was Neither Deliberate Nor Contumacious, But Was Occasioned Due To Circumstances Beyond The Control Of The Assessee.

Section 144Section 147

circumspection and judicious restraint. 5. At this juncture, we consciously refrain from adjudicating upon the sufficiency or otherwise of the explanation furnished for condonation of delay. In our opinion, the interests of justice would be adequately met if the entire matter is restored to the file ... shall 3 Damyanti Shah first examine the assessee’s application seeking condonation of delay in accordance with law and, thereafter, proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits, after granting due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. We also deem it appropriate to observe that the assessee shall

Flamingo Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Sion Trombay Road Chembur vs. DCIT Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojary,ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 35

outset, it was noticed that instant appeal is delayed by 72 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application requesting for condonation of delay. An affidavit of Sri Ashish Tayal, CFO has also been filed stating that the earlier CFO who was looking after all income tax matters ... filed on 6.8.2025.It is submitted that the delay was unintentional and occurred because of bonafide reasons. After taking into account these contentions, we condone the delay. 4. It may also be stated here that the instant appeal is part of second round of litigation. Brief facts of the case

Syed Abdul Nafey Arshad, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 1(1)(1)-Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1670/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 144

appeal suffers from a delay of ten days beyond the prescribed period 2 Syed Abdul Nafey Arshad of limitation. However, no application seeking condonation of delay has been filed, nor has any explanation whatsoever been furnished to demonstrate the existence of a reasonable or bona fide cause preventing the assessee ... present case clearly reflects a complete lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. 5. In the absence of any application for condonation of delay, coupled with persistent non-appearance and failure to 3 Syed Abdul Nafey Arshad respond to statutory notices, we are left with no material to examine either

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Komal Prasad Singhal, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 4519/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4519/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Income Tax Officer, Komal Prasad Singhal, Room No.217, 2Nd Floor, D Block, Vs. C-37, Surajmal Vihar, Vikas Bhawan, Ito, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aadpk4170C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Co No.249/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4519/Del/2025) Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Komal Prasad Singhal, Income Tax Officer, Room No.217, 2Nd Floor, D C-37, Surajmal Vihar, Vs. Delhi. Block, Pan No.Aadpk4170C Vikas Bhawan, Ito, Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 145Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

fully conversant with the facts of the case. 2. That the present affidavit is being filed in support of the application for condonation of delay in filing of cross objections before the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, arising out of the appeal filed by the Revenue ... That thereafter, upon advice of the legal counsel, the applicant promptly took steps to file the cross objections along with an application for condonation of delay. The cross objections were ultimately filed on 10/11/2025, resulting in a delay of 59 days. 7. That the delay in filing the cross objections

Sanjay Gupta, Rourkela Odisha vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO() Gorakhpur

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

ITA 61/VNS/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

explain the delay in filing of appeal before the learned CIT(A). It is held that this was a fit case for condonation of delay in filing of appeal by the learned CIT(A). 4. At the time of hearing, the assessee was represented by none and Revenue was represented

Ramesh Chandra Jaiswal, Gorakhpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2 (5), Gorakhpur

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

ITA 31/VNS/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Dec 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 56

time limit prescribed u/s. 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). The assessee has submitted application 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 the appeal ... hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay in filing of this appeal

Baby Chatterjee, Ranchi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Ranchi

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 241/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Baby Chatterjee, I.T.O., 2A/2B, Krishna Enclave, North Office Ward 1(3), Vs. Para, Doranda, Ranchi-834002 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Anppc 8818 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274Section 69A

order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 09/08/2023, however, this appeal was filed on 10/11/2023. The appellant has filed application for condonation of delay mentioning the fact that the in the month of September and October, the office of the Authorised Representative of the assessee was preoccupied with ... adjudicated on merit. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr.DR) for the revenue submits that on the issue of condonation of delay, the Bench may take appropriate view in accordance with law. Therefore, considering the fact that the delay is not inordinate and seems 2 Baby

Amninder Singh, Pathankot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Pathankot

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 321/ASR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Tribunal. The Ld. Sr. Dr Pleaded For Dismissal Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Adj. Letter dated 15-12-2025For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144

order Ld. AO made addition of agricultural income for Rs.44.80 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 97 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before Tribunal. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal

Jai Hind Souharda Pattin Sahakari Niyamit, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Belagavi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 168/PAN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji16 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Jai Hind Souharda Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Bazar Road, Tal.: Hukkeri, Belgavi-591309 Pan:Aaajj0226F . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal[‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 253(1)Section 80P

Niyamit Vs. ITO ITA No.168/PAN/2025, AY: 2012-13 2. The present appeal is filed with a delay of 376 days. The petition for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavits dt. 05/06/2025 & 04/11/2025, wherein cause of delay is explained. The reasons stated therein and explained in physical hearing establishes

Mayurbhai Hirabhai Sindhav (Maldhari), Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(2), Rajkot

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 571/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

barred by limitation by 3092 days. The assessee has moved separate petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition for condonation of delay are similar and identical for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, therefore, for the sake of convenience, the sufficient cause narrated ... have been taken into consideration for deciding the above condonation petitions, en masse. The sample contents of petition for condonation of delay, in ITA No.570/RJT/2025 are as follows: “1. In the present case, the appellate order u/s. 250 was passed on 02.01.2017. The appellant does not have the exact date

Mayurbhai Hirabhai Sindhav ( Maldhari), Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(2), Rajkot

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 570/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

barred by limitation by 3092 days. The assessee has moved separate petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition for condonation of delay are similar and identical for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, therefore, for the sake of convenience, the sufficient cause narrated ... have been taken into consideration for deciding the above condonation petitions, en masse. The sample contents of petition for condonation of delay, in ITA No.570/RJT/2025 are as follows: “1. In the present case, the appellate order u/s. 250 was passed on 02.01.2017. The appellant does not have the exact date

Anila Narendra Sanghani, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Jamanagar, Jamnagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 323/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)

323/Rjt/2025 Antila Narendra Sanghani 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 634 days in case of assessee’s quantum appeal in ITA No.322/RJT/2025, in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) has also ... condoned the delay of 477 days in case of assessee’s penalty appeal in ITA No.323/RJT/2025, in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The learned counsel submitted that assessee has explained the sufficient cause for delay in filing these two appeals,despite of the sufficient cause explained by assessee

Anila Narendra Sanghani, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Ward 1(3), Jamnagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 322/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)

323/Rjt/2025 Antila Narendra Sanghani 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 634 days in case of assessee’s quantum appeal in ITA No.322/RJT/2025, in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) has also ... condoned the delay of 477 days in case of assessee’s penalty appeal in ITA No.323/RJT/2025, in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The learned counsel submitted that assessee has explained the sufficient cause for delay in filing these two appeals,despite of the sufficient cause explained by assessee

Vinodkumar Dhanulalji Sawji, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 1, Jalna

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1416/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Pratikh Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

./2024 (Vinodkumar Dhanulalji Sawji) 2. There is a delay of 163 and 164 days in filing of ITA Nos. 1415 & 1416/PUN/2024. Applications for condonation of delay along with affidavits are placed on record. The main reason for delay is on account of illness of the assessee, who has been diagnosed ... various types of ailments and was under medical treatment at Manik Hospital & Research Centre, Aurangabad. Considering the contentions made in the application for condonation of delay and also taking into consideration the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag

Vinodkumar Dhanulalji Sawji, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 1, Jalna

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1415/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Pratikh Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

Vinodkumar Dhanulalji Sawji) 2. There is a delay of 163 and 164 days in filing of ITA Nos. 1415 & 1416/PUN/2024. Applications for condonation of delay along with affidavits are placed on record. The main reason for delay is on account of illness of the assessee, who has been diagnosed with ... various types of ailments and was under medical treatment at Manik Hospital & Research Centre, Aurangabad. Considering the contentions made in the application for condonation of delay and also taking into consideration the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag

Mary Daisy(Deceased) Represented by Legal Heir Mr. Berlin Jospeh (Husband), Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 10(6), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2965/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2964 & 2965/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Varshha Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 250

days in filing the appeal for assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16 before him and the assessee has not filed any petition for condonation of delay. In Form 35, assessee has stated the reasons for delay in filing the appeals before FAA was that due to health issues ... held that there is no sufficient cause and also proper explanation and reason and hence, dismissed the appeals in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeals. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had expired in 2017 and the legal heir of the assessee i.e., assessee’s husband