← 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

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 2964/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

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

S 838 N M Maniyakkaranur Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

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

ITA 2962/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2962/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. S 838 N Maniyakkaranur The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Co-Op. Vs. Ward 1(6), Credit Society, Salem D No.88, Periyavadagampatti B,O., Salem – 636 354. Pan: Aaeas 9865L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Bipin.C.N, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin.C.N, CIT
Section 250

reasonable cause for condoning the same. 3. On perusing the order of FAA, we noted that the assessee had filed application for condonation of delay before the FAA stating the reason that the order of the AO was received on 20.03.2024 and the secretary of the assessee society was sick ... above submission. In our view, the reason cited by assessee in its petition before FAA seems quite reasonable and hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before FAA and also direct him to admit the issue on merits. Accordingly, we set aside the order of FAA and remit

Plaza Properties Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Coporate Ward-5(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2934/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2933 & 2934/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Varshha Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

delay in filing the appeals. But the assessee has filed adjournment applications and hence, the FAA had dismissed the appeals in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeals. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee was not in receipt of intimation u/s.200A of the Act levying late fees u/s.234E ... material on record. The appeals filed by the assessee have been dismissed by ITA No.2933 & 2934/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: the FAA in limine without condoning the delay of 3839 days. Admittedly, the assessee had not filed the condonation petition, though the FAA had issued notices. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude

Plaza Properties Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-592), Chennai

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

ITA 2933/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2933 & 2934/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Varshha Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

delay in filing the appeals. But the assessee has filed adjournment applications and hence, the FAA had dismissed the appeals in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeals. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee was not in receipt of intimation u/s.200A of the Act levying late fees u/s.234E ... material on record. The appeals filed by the assessee have been dismissed by ITA No.2933 & 2934/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: the FAA in limine without condoning the delay of 3839 days. Admittedly, the assessee had not filed the condonation petition, though the FAA had issued notices. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude

Muni Reddy Santhosh Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Ward No. 1(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 507/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: None
Section 143(3)Section 154

Assessee on 30.10.2023. However, the impugned appeal is filed on 26.02.2025 thereby causing a delay of 423 days. Assessee has filed a condonation of delay petition wherein it is stated that due to unforeseen circumstances, health issues, lack of necessary documents or any other valid reasons the Assessee was unable ... filing of the appeal and even affidavit submitted is also not proper and one liner statement. We are constrained to not to condone the delay of 161 days. In view of the above facts, as Assessee has failed to show any sufficient cause, the Appeal is not admitted and dismissed

Muni Reddy Santhosh Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(3), Bangalore

ITA 414/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: None
Section 143(3)Section 154

Assessee on 30.10.2023. However, the impugned appeal is filed on 26.02.2025 thereby causing a delay of 423 days. Assessee has filed a condonation of delay petition wherein it is stated that due to unforeseen circumstances, health issues, lack of necessary documents or any other valid reasons the Assessee was unable ... filing of the appeal and even affidavit submitted is also not proper and one liner statement. We are constrained to not to condone the delay of 161 days. In view of the above facts, as Assessee has failed to show any sufficient cause, the Appeal is not admitted and dismissed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Nutricraft India Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 298/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA
Section 143(3)Section 148ASection 153CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40

barring matters and other miscellaneous work the filing of the appeal is delayed by 68 days and therefore it was prayed for the condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 5. The learned CIT DR reiterated the same fact and submitted that the delay may be condoned ... appeal which is narrated in paragraph No. 5 above. We find that the delay is for sufficient cause and therefore we condone the delay in filing the appeal of the learned assessing officer, we admit the same. 12. Coming to the facts of the case we find that the assessee

Goldman Tapes Private Limited, Mulund vs. Income Tax Officer, Palghar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1289/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishgoldman Tapes Private Limited Income Tax Officer 510, Marathon Max Mulund Mumbai-421 303 Vs. Goregaon Link Road, Mulund – 400 080 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 6922 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Tanmay Milind Phadke Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2024, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. We Have Considered Rival Submissions & Perused The Materials Available On Record. The Primary Grievance Of The Assessee Is On Lack Of Opportunity Being Granted By The First Appellate Authority For Presenting The Case On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Milind PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta
Section 147

assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. The appeal was filed with some delay. Though the first appellate authority condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits, however, he sustained the additions made by the A.O. 6. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee ... submitted that in the faceless proceeding, the assessee had merely made submissions regarding condonation of delay and has not made any submissions on merits, carrying an impression that only after the delay is condoned and appeal is admitted, the assessee is required to make submissions on merits. Thus, he submitted

Gordhanbhai Govindbhai Kalathiya, Thane, Maharashtra vs. ITO- (2) (1), Thane, Maharashtra

Appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 668/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Singh, Ld. A.R. (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 69C

Gordhanbhai G. Kalathiya delay in filing of 1st appeal, has duly filed the relevant documents mentioned above and the application for condonation of delay in physical form but it appears that due to assignment or migration of the physical appeal to NFAC, such submissions and documents and application filed, either

Amar Pal Singh, Noida Gautom Buddh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward 1(1) Noida, Noida Gbn U.P

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4680/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4680/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Amar Pal Singh, Income Tax Officer, E-205, Sector-2, Greater Noida, Vs. Ward 1(1), West, Near Trident Embassy, Noida, Bishrakh Jalalpur, Gbn., U.P., Noida. Pan No.Cofps6151B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144Section 250

Singh FOR A.Y. 2012-13 U/S 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961 AGAINST ORDER DATED 31-03-2025 Sub: - Application For Condonation of Delay Sir, We submit as under: - 1. That the Appellate order u/s 250 is Dt. 31.01.2025 assuming same has been serve through ITBA on 31.01.2025. Hence ... could not have been avoided 7. It is requested that the reason for delay in filing appeals as stated in their application for condonation of delay is the fact that the assesses is in service and not aware about the appellate order due to this , the assessee were unable

Shri. Mohammad Yousf Sofi, Pulwama vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 299/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Tribunal.

For Appellant: Sh. Bashir Ahmad Lone (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147

adjudication of appeal on merits since the appeal has not been admitted by Ld. CIT(A) for want of condonation of delay of 297 days. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal ... Rs.38.87 Lacs for want of any response from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 297 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before Tribunal. 3. Keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, I deem

Laxmi Kant Dubey, Durg vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 595/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.595/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Laxmi Kant Dubey 245, Ward No.54, Phool Gaon, Durg-491 228 (C.G.) Pan: Bbxpd9623B

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 5

/2024, dated 31.01.2025, had observed that a justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income ... Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. That in the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 4. case of Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil

Bharati Nimba Patil, Nashik vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 503/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.503/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Bharati Nimba Patil, Vs. Ito, Nfac, Delhi. S. No.235, P. No.53, 54, Shri Datta Krupa Kalanagar Mhasarul, Behind Aakash Petrol Pump, Nashik- 422004. Pan : Akapp7755P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket M. Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Bharat Andhale (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine & Thereby Confirming The Addition Of Rs.48,75,000 Made By The A.O. In The Ex-Parte Asst. Order U/S 144 R.Ws. 147 Passed During Covid Period, By Taxing The Entire Consideration Received On Sale Of Agricultural Land As Stcg Without Verifying The Contention Raised In Form 35 That The Impugned Land Was Rural Agricultural

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. Joshi (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)

appeal.” 3. There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing ... condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and furnished her return of income on 28.11.2014 by declaring an income of Rs.5,99,210/-. The case was reopened

Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-12, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2526/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2525 & 2526/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. 19, Jaydeo Nagar, Sinhgad Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Abqpp3304F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Vishvjeet Nagda Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2526/Pun/2025 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 10Section 10(14)Section 147

against the principle of natural justice. 1.4 The appellant respectfully submits that the dismissal of the appeal vis-à-vis application of condonation of delay for filing of appeal by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) without considering the facts of the case is not justified and the same leads to injustice ... with delay condonation application explaining that he was unaware of the proceedings due to residing abroad. However, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone the delay of 379 days and without going into merits of the case dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 10. It was the contention

Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Pune vs. DCIT, Cir-12, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2525/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2525 & 2526/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. 19, Jaydeo Nagar, Sinhgad Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Abqpp3304F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Vishvjeet Nagda Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2526/Pun/2025 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 10Section 10(14)Section 147

against the principle of natural justice. 1.4 The appellant respectfully submits that the dismissal of the appeal vis-à-vis application of condonation of delay for filing of appeal by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) without considering the facts of the case is not justified and the same leads to injustice ... with delay condonation application explaining that he was unaware of the proceedings due to residing abroad. However, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone the delay of 379 days and without going into merits of the case dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 10. It was the contention

Swipe Telecom LLP, Pune vs. DCIT Circle - 5, Pune

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

ITA 1911/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1911/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Swipe Telecom Llp, Dcit, Circle-5, Pune Unit No. T-3/T-4, Metro Pole Building, Next To Inox Vs. Theatre, Bundgarden Road, Camp, Pune-411001 Maharashtra Pan-Aarcs7202C अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Jain Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 15-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18-12-2025 आदीश /Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 18.07.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Dated 28.03.2016 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

dated 28.03.2016 of the Act. 2. Registry has informed that the instant appeal is time barred by 291 days. Application with affidavit for condonation of delay stands filed. Main reason for delay is due to closure of the business of assessee LLP and no employees to look after the income ... Supreme Court) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382) condone the delay of 291 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1] The Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) has erred in confirming

Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2198/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2194 To 2198/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2014-15 Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur. Shahunagar Parite, Sugar Factory, Shahunagar Parite, Tal- Karveer, Kolhapur- 416211. Pan : Aaaas3731R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Five Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2194/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2010-11 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)

respectively. 2. There is delay in filing of the present appeals. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the appeals within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate

Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2197/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2194 To 2198/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2014-15 Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur. Shahunagar Parite, Sugar Factory, Shahunagar Parite, Tal- Karveer, Kolhapur- 416211. Pan : Aaaas3731R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Five Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2194/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2010-11 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)

respectively. 2. There is delay in filing of the present appeals. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the appeals within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate

Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2196/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2194 To 2198/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2014-15 Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur. Shahunagar Parite, Sugar Factory, Shahunagar Parite, Tal- Karveer, Kolhapur- 416211. Pan : Aaaas3731R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Five Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2194/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2010-11 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)

respectively. 2. There is delay in filing of the present appeals. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the appeals within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate

Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2195/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2194 To 2198/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2014-15 Shree Bhogawati Sahakari Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur. Shahunagar Parite, Sugar Factory, Shahunagar Parite, Tal- Karveer, Kolhapur- 416211. Pan : Aaaas3731R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Five Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2194/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2010-11 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)

respectively. 2. There is delay in filing of the present appeals. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the appeals within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate