“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

Biju Patnaik University of Technology, Bput Colony, Chhend vs. Income Tax Officer, the National Faceless Assessment Centre

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 488/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Digant Das, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

days each in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation application along with affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons, which are not found to be false. Accordingly, the delay of 175 days in both the appeals of the assessee

S B Electro Structural, Bhubaneswar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 226/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.226/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) S B Electro Structural Vs Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar 111, Ground Floor, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswasr-751007 Pan No. : Ablfs 8537 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1, Dated 29.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 311 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons, Which Are Not Found To Be False. Accordingly, The Delay Of 311 Days In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, It Was Pointed Out To The Ld. Ar That In Para 3.2 Of The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit Has Specifically Mentioned For Non-

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

appeal of the assessee is delayed by 311 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation application along with affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons, which are not found to be false. Accordingly, the delay of 311 days in the appeal of the assessee is condoned

Mandala Sriramachandra Murthy, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 606/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

There was a delay of 120 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay in Form No.35. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that there is no sufficient cause and therefore, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved ... case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine by refuting to condone the delay of 131 days in filing the appeal. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in stating the delay as 131 days against the delay

Sri Visweswara Swamy Temple, Machilipatnam vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/VIZ/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 12A

filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: “]. The petitioner is the Appellant in the appeal mentioned above, The Order ... collating documents and seeking professional advice for filing the present appeal. 4. It is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay and pray that the Appeal be admitted and taken on record, as otherwise great hardship and Insufferable Injustice will be caused to the petitioner

Indira Rani Mulpuri, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 134/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal, Which Caused The Delay. She Further Submitted That The Delay Was Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate, Therefore, Pleaded To Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing In The Interest Of Justice.

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

dated 25.12.2019 for the AY 2017-18 with the delay of 318 2 Indira Rani Mulpuri days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and submitted that she is not a regular income tax assessee and the CA engaged by her to look after her income tax matters ... appeal before the Tribunal, which caused the delay. She further submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice. 2. We have gone through the condonation petition filed by the assessee and find

Comprehensive Rural Promotional Association, Bobbili vs. CPC Bengalur, Bengaluru

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

ITA 319/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.319/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Cpc Comprehensive Rural Promotional Association Cbm Compound, Opp. Fire Station Bangalore Bobbili, Bobbili Govt. Hospital Road S.O. Bobbili, Vizianagaram – 535559 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaatc7028G]

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)

filed within the due date as specified. 3. On being aggrieved by the order of the CPC, assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The petition for condonation before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad [in short Ld.CIT ... along with return of income within the due date. The Ld. CIT(A) also observed that the Ld.CIT(E) rejected the petition for condonation of delay filed by the assessee vide order dated 29.03.2024 in accordance with the CBDT Circular No. 2/2020 dated 03.01.2020 and hence dismissed the appeal

Cocoon Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 1522/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1522/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : - Cocoon Foundation The Cit(Exemption) बनाम/ Nr. Bhagvan Nagar Tekra, Ahmedabad – 380 015 V/S. Paldi, Ahmedabad – 380 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaatc 9124 H (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ganesh R. Pawar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/12/2025 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 (Exemption), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(E)’] Dated 23/08/2024. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld.Cit(E) In Rejecting The Application Of The Assessee For Final/Regular Registration Under Sub-Clause (Iii) Of Clause (Ac) Of Sub-Section (1) Of Section 12A Of The Act. Cocoon Foundation Vs. Cit (E)

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh R. Pawar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 12Section 12A

Cocoon Foundation vs. CIT (E) 2 3. The appeal of the assessee is time-barred by 274 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. 4. We have heard the rival contentions of the Ld. Representatives of the parties and gone through the record

Bhavna Shetalkumar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1103/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Parin S Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

section 144 and section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)"] for the Assessment Year 2016-17. Condonation of Delay 2. At the outset, it is noted that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 170 days. The assessee submitted a sworn ... negligent nor deliberate but caused due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. 3. The learned Departmental Representative did not object to the condonation of delay. Considering the affidavit on record and in the interest of substantial justice, the delay of 170 days in filing the appeal is condoned

Anil Kumar Dundoo, Secunderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1470/HYD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1470/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Anil Kumar Dundoo Vs. Acit Secunderabad Circle 10(1) Pan:Abppd7600K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate D Prabhakar Reddy राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Advocate D Prabhakar ReddyFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

appeal be admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any objection to the condonation of delay. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the condonation petition along with the affidavit placed on record. The reasons explained ... There was, however, a delay of 2247 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. 8. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal

Damodaram Suresh, Gobichettipalayam vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Erode

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2715/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2715/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Damodaran Suresh, The Income Tax Officer, Prop. Sumy Electronic, Vs. Ward-1(1), No.52, Main Road, Erode. Gobichettipalayam Tamil Nadu - 638 452. [Pan: Aijps3460M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.Girish Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Bipin, C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri (): The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore-1 [Pcit] Dated 09.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 198 Days In Filing This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed Petition Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating Damodaram Suresh :- 2 -: Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of The Appeal. On Perusal Of The Aforesaid Reasons In The Condonation Application, We Are Of The View That There Is Sufficient Cause For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. Hence, We Condone The Delay In Filing This Appeal & Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

For Appellant: Mr.Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin, C.N, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4Section 40A(3)

There is a delay of 198 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed petition along with affidavit for condonation of delay stating Damodaram Suresh :- 2 -: therein the reasons for belated filing of the appeal. On perusal of the aforesaid reasons in the condonation application ... view that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee filed the return of income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Vijaya Bank, Baroda Corporate Centre Bandra Kurla Complex

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

ITA 2296/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri S. Ananthan, CA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 201Section 40

deleted the addition. 5. This appeal is e-filed by the Revenue with a delay of 180 days. Application for condonation of delay along with Affidavit is filed by the Revenue stating that " I Shri. Santosh Bheemaiah, IRS son of Sri. Bheemaiah.B aged 42 about years, Deputy Commissioner of Income ... therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Appellate Tribunal may most graciously be pleased to: a) Allow the present Application thereby condoning the delay caused in refilling of the present Appeal and permit the Applicant to refile the rectified Appeal; and, b) Pass any such other order or orders

Shimoga Urban Development Authority, Shimoga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Shimoga

In the result all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2120/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R Rao, Advocate

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that Assessee has also made an application before the CIT, Shimoga on 11.08.2025 requesting condonation of delay in filing of form no. 10AB for Assessment Year 2016-17 to 2020-21. Therefore, the issue may be restored back to the file ... case of Ahmedabad development Authority [ supra] after the decision of the concerned authority u/s 119 (2) (b) of the act with respect to condonation of delay petition for registration u/s 12AA of the Act. 12. In the result all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Shimoga Urban Development Authority, Shimoga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Shimoga

In the result all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2119/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R Rao, Advocate

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Shimoga Urban Development Authority, Shimoga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Shimoga

In the result all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2118/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R Rao, Advocate

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Satbir Kumar Sarlia, Thane vs. Ward 3(2) Thane, Thane

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

ITA 5824/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmathy S. ()

Section 144Section 154Section 250Section 253Section 269Section 271DSection 27I

records that there is delay of about 960 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. Assesse has furnished an application seeking condonation of delay vide letter dated 16/09/2025, which has been filed online stating as under:- “BEFORE THE HON’BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI ASSESSES ... NAME- SATBIR KUMAR SARLIA PAN NO. - AIOPS1883K A.Y. - 2011-2012 Subject: - Application for Condonation of Delay filing of ITAT Hon’ble Sir, The appellant most respectfully submits this application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under section

Sunny Vijay Lakhani, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 28(3), Mumbai

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6950/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (SR DR)For Respondent: Ms. Ritika Aggarwal

Section 68

attention to the application seeking condonation of our attention to the application seeking condonation of a our attention to the application seeking condonation of delay of 392 days 392 days in filing the appeal. It was submitted in filing the appeal. It was submitted that the delay occurred solely

Sunny Vijay Lakhani, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 28(3), Mumbai

ITA 6948/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (SR DR)For Respondent: Ms. Ritika Aggarwal

Section 68

Sunny Vijay Lakhani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 28(3), Mumbai

ITA 6947/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (SR DR)For Respondent: Ms. Ritika Aggarwal

Section 68

Ramita Chaudhuri, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 69(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4392/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Ramita Chaudhuri, Ward-69(1), Block C-1, Flat No.1002, Vs. Delhi. The Legend, Sector-57, Gurgaon. Pan-Aappc4405P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Sethi, Ca Department By Shri Krishna Kumar Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gwalior (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short), Dated 18.03.2025 In Appeal No. Nfac/2020-21/10197234 For Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. From The Perusal Of The Record, It Is Seen That Filing The Appeal Is Delayed By 55 Days, For Which Condonation Application Is Filed. In The Said Application, It Is Stated That When The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Was Served Upon The Assessee She Was Residing Abroad In Madrid, Spain & Was Not In India. She Returned To India On 20Th June, 2025 From Span. Due To This Reason, The Delay Of 55 Days Was Occurred In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Also Filed An Affidavit In Support Of The Ramita Chaudhuri Vs. Ito Averments Made In The Application For Condonation Of Delay. Considering The Facts & Explanation Given In The Application, We Find That Assessee Has Been Able To Demonstrate That There Is Reasonable Cause In Filing The Appeal Delayed. Considering These Facts, We Condoned The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication On Merits.

before the Tribunal. The assessee also filed an affidavit in support of the Ramita Chaudhuri vs. ITO averments made in the application for condonation of delay. Considering the facts and explanation given in the application, we find that assessee has been able to demonstrate that there is reasonable cause ... filing the appeal delayed. Considering these facts, we condoned the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The sole issue in this appeal is with respect to not allowing the TDS credit of Rs.22

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad vs. Mahalaxmi Light House, Hapur

ITA 3514/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Mahalakshmi Light House, Income Tax 285, Avas Vikas Vihar, Room No. 201, First Floor, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh Cgo Complex, Hapurchungi, Pan: Aatfm3627N Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent

Section 148Section 148ASection 69

filed by the Assessee. 5. There is a delay of 234 days in filing the C.O and the Assessee in the applications for condonation of delay contended as under:- ‘It is respectfully submitted that the delay in filing the cross- objection was primarily due to bringing correct facts before ... verification of these documents was the cause for filing cross objection late, the delay in filing being reasonable cause may kindly be condoned. The delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to the genuine and bona fide circumstances as explained above.’ 6. For the reasons stated