← 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

Kaidvana Muvada P Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandali Limited, Panchmahal vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Godhra

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

ITA 2325/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271ASection 69C

before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. At the outset, we observe that the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along-with an Affidavit for delay of 393 days in filing of the present appeal. We have considered the application for condonation of delay

Rajendran Palanivelu, Pudukkottai vs. ITO Ward 1, Pudukkottai

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

ITA 3940/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3940/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 18.02.2026
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 234ASection 250Section 37(1)

find that there is a delay of 23 days in filing the present appeal before us. The appellant filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay on the grounds that the delay :- 4 -: occurred on account of the fact that the notices and order issued by the Department went ... appellant remained on controverted by the ld. Sr. Departmental Representative, therefore, we are considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone of delay of 23 days. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 23 days and admit and appeal for adjudication on merits. 7. At the outset, we find

M/S. Mithilesh Fabrics, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Tirupur, Triupur

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

ITA 3124/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3124/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Mithilesh Fabrics, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 19, Elango Nagar, 3Rd Street, Ward 1(1), Backside Sanat Theatre, Tirupur. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Abbfm7917J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T. Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 35 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 35 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, we find the reasons stated by the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Manhattan Associates (India) Development Centre Private Limited, Bangalore

ITA 2099/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Vs. M/S. Manhattan Associates (India) Circle – 4(1)(1), Development Centre Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore. 5Th & 6Th Floor, B1 Block, Brigade Tech Gardens Brigade Properties Pvt. Ltd., Sez, Brookfield, Kundalahalli S.O. Bangalore North, Bangalore – 566 037. Pan: Aadcm 0727 A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Nirmal Mathew, Advocate Respondent : Dr. Divya K. J, Cit(Dr)(Itat), By Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026

For Appellant: Shri. Nirmal Mathew, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 250

appeal was filed 513 days after the deadline. 3. So, in addition to the appeal, the learned assessing officer has applied for condonation of delay, as detailed in the letter dated 25 6/9/2025, which is as follows: "Kindly refer to the above cited subject. 2. The condonation of delay

Noorul Hasan Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 25(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7206/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarnoorul Hasan Shaikh Vs. Ito- Ward 25(3)(1) 4, Laxmi Bhavan, P.D’Mello Room 118, 1St Floor, Road. Kautilya Bhavan, Carnac Bunder, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai - 400001 Bandra (East), Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Apaps5077A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Dinkle H. Hariya – Advocate Revenue By Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 23.12.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. The Order Is Bad In Law, Illegal & Without Jurisdiction

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for. 3. REJECTION OF APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY 3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in passing the order ex-parte and dismissing the appeal in limine, by purportedly not condoning the alleged delay ... busy with the post-death ceremonies. But, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay. 4. After having gone through the records, we find that the assessee has taken a specific stand that the order of assessment was served only

Kabel Metal Power Cables Ltd, Thane vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5299/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 154Section 41(1)Section 69C

assessee are reproduced as under: “1.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld. CTT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal of 440 days (excluding Covid-19, pandemic) and ought to have considered the bonafide reasons and compelling circumstances that had precluded ... note that there is a delay of 207 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which a petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit of the Managing Director of the assessee company is placed on record. In the affidavit filed by the Managing Director

Chintan Vrajlal Mangukiya, Surat vs. Assessment Unit ITO Jurisdictional A O Ward-3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 859/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.859/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Chintan Vrajlal Mangukiya Assessment Unit Ito बनाम B-76 Ramkrishna Society Jurisdictional Ao / L.H. Road Ward-3(3)(1) V/S. Varachha Surat – 395 006 Ito Ward-3(3) Surat – 395 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Blppm 3876 F (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 25/03/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Time-Barred By 79 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Chintan Vrajlal Mangukiya Vs.Ito Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Assessment Years (AYs) 2016-17. 2. The appeal of the assessee is time-barred by 79 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been Chintan Vrajlal Mangukiya vs.ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 pleaded that the Ld. CIT(A) had sent the notice

Yakubmiya Nabimiya Belim, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Nadiad

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

ITA 1464/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1464/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2017-2018 Yakubmiya Nabimiya Belim, The Income Tax Officer, बनामVs. Muslim Vas, Ward-3, At. Raska, Nadiad. Taluka Mehmedabad, Kheda-387130. Gujarat.

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah with Shri Jimi Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

observe that there is a delay of 233 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee, in the application for condonation of delay, has stated that the notice was received through e-mail but was not communicated to him by his tax consultant. He further stated that ... /SMS or respond to the notices in time. In view of these reasons, the Asst. Year 2017-18 3 Ld. AR prayed for condonation of delay. The explanation furnished by the assessee appears to be genuine, and accordingly, the delay is condoned. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment

Surendra Himmatlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT, 8(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 8536/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gopal Sharma &For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat
Section 115Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)

115BBF of the Act. Thereafter, on 26/04/2025, the Assessee instituted appeal before the CIT(A) against the Intimation Order along with application seeking condonation of delay of 69 days in filing the said appeal. The Learned CIT(A) condoned the aforesaid delay. However, the Learned CIT(A) rejected Assessee

Shri Abdul Wahab Wajidali Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6793/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 144Section 234Section 254(1)Section 69A

rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. Firstly, we are considering the plea of condonation of delay in filing of appeal. We find that before us, the ld. AR vehemently argued that assessee has engaged Shri Kiran B. Mehta

Basant Lal Gupta, Sidhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Rewa

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 132/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

filed by the assessee, filings are beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay in filing of these appeals, pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit ... appeals for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of I.T.A. No.129, 130 to 132/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2010-11 2 the appeals. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances

Basant Lal Gupta, Sidhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Rewa

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 131/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

filed by the assessee, filings are beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay in filing of these appeals, pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit ... appeals for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of I.T.A. No.129, 130 to 132/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2010-11 2 the appeals. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances

Basant Lal Gupta, Sidhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Rewa

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 130/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

filed by the assessee, filings are beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay in filing of these appeals, pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit ... appeals for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of I.T.A. No.129, 130 to 132/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2010-11 2 the appeals. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances

Basant Lal Gupta, Sidhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Rewa

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 129/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

filed by the assessee, filings are beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay in filing of these appeals, pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit ... appeals for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of I.T.A. No.129, 130 to 132/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2010-11 2 the appeals. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances

Kamlesh Sharma, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 70/RPR/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 70/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2020-21) Kamlesh Sharma, House No.109, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Harihant Nagar, Sarona, Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Ring Road No.1, Raipur-492001, Cg Building, Civil Lines, Raipur-492001 Pan: Bppps4514C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None (Adjournment Petition Filed) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2020-21 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.12.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 57Section 69

That, on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal in-limine, refusing to condone the delay, without appreciating the 1 Kamlesh Sharma vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1) facts of the case, and therefore, the impugned appellate order ... view of the above, I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. As per the provisions of section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, an appeal filed beyond the prescribed period

Vinod Kumar Kailashchandra Verma, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Raipur

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

ITA 69/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 69/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vinod Kumar Khailashchandra Verma, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), House No.496/9, Avanti Vihar, Sector-2, Central Revenue Building, Telibandha, Raipur-492001 (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G. 492001 Pan: Aanpv5964B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. (Adjournment Petition Filed.) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 06/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: None. (Adjournment petition filed.)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69A

That, on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal in-limine, refusing to condone the delay, without appreciating the facts of the case and provisions of relevant law, and 1 Vinod Kumar Kailashchandra Verma vs. ITO, Ward-3(1) therefore ... been filed with an extraordinary delay of 1051 days against the assessment order dated 29.03.2022. The appellant has not submitted any request for condonation of delay under section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In light of the material available on record, the following points are pertinent

Kamlesh Koushal, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, 1(2), Indore

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

ITA 708/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shriparesh M Joshi

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274Section 69A

instant appeal ought to have been filed within the time prescribed under the Act & Rules. An application for the condonation of delay dated 13.08.2025 is placed on record along with an affidavit in support dated 13.08.2025 of the assessee. The reason of delay has been attributed to erstwhile counsel ... rival contentions are of the considered opinion that the delay is bonafidely incurred & for which sufficient cause has been shown. Accordingly, we condone the delay. The appeal is admitted & taken up for hearing. 3.2 It was then submitted by the Ld. AR that Return of Income was not e-filed

Abde Ali, Indore vs. ITO, Burhanpur

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 648/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

fact as there is a delay in filing appeal. No document is attached alongwith Form No. 35 admitting to delay and requesting for condonation of delay. Even notice u/s 250 dated 21.06.2024 specifically pointing out this discrepancy of delay in filing appeal has not been complied with by the appellant ... examined on merits." 2.2 There is a statutory limit prescribed for filing of appeal in the Act. The invocation of the power to condone any delay, major or minor, in observing such time limit is possible only on the satisfaction of the CIT (Appeal) regarding the appellant having been unable

Abde Ali, Indore vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

ITA 647/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

fact as there is a delay in filing appeal. No document is attached alongwith Form No. 35 admitting to delay and requesting for condonation of delay. Even notice u/s 250 dated 21.06.2024 specifically pointing out this discrepancy of delay in filing appeal has not been complied with by the appellant ... examined on merits." 2.2 There is a statutory limit prescribed for filing of appeal in the Act. The invocation of the power to condone any delay, major or minor, in observing such time limit is possible only on the satisfaction of the CIT (Appeal) regarding the appellant having been unable

Puneet Katiyar, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3)(5), Kanpur

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

ITA 1007/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). 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 ... appeal for 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 the specific facts and I.T.A. No.1007/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2016-17 2 circumstances of the present