← 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

Manamohan Sahoo, Puri vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward, Puri

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

ITA 622/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Kumar MishraFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

appeal of the assessee is delayed by 530 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false ... object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 2 530 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Sabita Khuntia, Puri vs. The Income Tax Officer, Puri Ward, Puri

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

ITA 584/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.584/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sabita Khuntia, At-Gopal Krishna, Vs Ito, Puri Ward, Puri Lane, Abakash Lane, Po: Kumbarpada, Puri Station Road , Puri Pan No. : Bifpk 0741 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04/12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

appeal of the assessee is barred by 178 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to 2 condone the delay. Accordingly

Susi Charitable Trust, Khurda vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 582/CTK/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Dec 2025AY 2026-27

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

adverse inference. It was the submission that the authority who has granted power to adjudicate the issue has also granted the authority to condone the delay whereas the Act specifically does not exclude such power of condonation of delay. It was the submission that provision of Section ... does not exclude the power to condone the delay. It was the 2 prayer that the issue may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(E) to condone the delay and to consider the assessee’s prayer for registration u/s.80G of the Act. 3. In reply

Suryakanta Jena, Gada Parjang vs. ITO Dhenkanal, Dhenkanal

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

ITA 579/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.579/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Suryakanta Jena, Gada Parjang, Vs Ito, Dhenkanal Kmakhyanagar, Dhenkanal Pan No. : Aqapj 9635 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04/12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Natabar Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR
Section 144

appeal of the assessee is barred by 265 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay

Mrtc India Pvt Ltd, Puri vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 575/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.575/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Mrtc India Pvt Ltd., Ground Floor, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nabakalebar Road, Puri-752002 Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar Pan No. : (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 4 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 4 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.3.2025 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar- 1/14728/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. At The Outset, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 143 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Supported By An Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Ld.Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR

assessee is barred by 143 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation petition supported by an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious 2 आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.575/CTK/2025 ("नधा ... रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 143 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed

Thebaitarani Mahila Co-Operative Limited, Bhadrak vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 356/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.356/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) The Baitarani Mahila Co-Operative Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhadrak Limited, Maa Kali Nagar, Chandbali, Bhadrak-756133 Pan No. : Aabat 9505 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Tarun Kumar Agarwalla, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 4 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 4 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 8.12.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10228445 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Shri Tarun Kumar Agarwalla, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. At The Outset, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 162 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Supported By An Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Ld.Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Kumar Agarwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR
Section 148Section 148A

assessee is barred by 162 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation petition supported by an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious 2 आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.356/CTK/2025 ("नधा ... रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee has been served with

Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Sangh, Mithapur vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward (1), Dwarka

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

ITA 786/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 270ASection 271A

were dismissed by the ld. CIT(A), as these appeals filed by the assessee, were time barred, and learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay. The findings of the ld. CIT(A) in assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 783/Rjt/2025, as a sample, is reproduced as follows ... above discussion and considering the facts and position of the law on this issue, I find that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of appeal by the assessee and thus condonation of delay is hereby rejected. 6.2 Since the appeal is being dismissed

Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Sangh, Mithapur vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward (1), Dwarka

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

ITA 785/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 270ASection 271A

were dismissed by the ld. CIT(A), as these appeals filed by the assessee, were time barred, and learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay. The findings of the ld. CIT(A) in assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 783/Rjt/2025, as a sample, is reproduced as follows ... above discussion and considering the facts and position of the law on this issue, I find that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of appeal by the assessee and thus condonation of delay is hereby rejected. 6.2 Since the appeal is being dismissed

Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Sangh, Mithapur vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward (1), Dwarka

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

ITA 784/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 270ASection 271A

were dismissed by the ld. CIT(A), as these appeals filed by the assessee, were time barred, and learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay. The findings of the ld. CIT(A) in assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 783/Rjt/2025, as a sample, is reproduced as follows ... above discussion and considering the facts and position of the law on this issue, I find that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of appeal by the assessee and thus condonation of delay is hereby rejected. 6.2 Since the appeal is being dismissed

Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Sangh, Mithapur vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward (1), Dwarka

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

ITA 783/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 270ASection 271A

were dismissed by the ld. CIT(A), as these appeals filed by the assessee, were time barred, and learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay. The findings of the ld. CIT(A) in assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 783/Rjt/2025, as a sample, is reproduced as follows ... above discussion and considering the facts and position of the law on this issue, I find that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of appeal by the assessee and thus condonation of delay is hereby rejected. 6.2 Since the appeal is being dismissed

Magadh Homiopathik Medical Collage and Hospital, Bihar Sharif vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Patna

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

ITA 334/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

appeal is delayed by 46 days by the assessee. However, the assessee has not filed any petition before the ITAT for seeking condonation of delay of 46 days. However, a perusal of Form No. 36 filed shows that in the row for the appeal details, the date of order under

Savita Devi, Supaul, Bihar, India vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Saharsa, Bihar

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

ITA 157/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 69

157/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Savita Devi. to give the sufficient reason for the delay of filing of appeal. Since the condonation of delay is not granted, the Appeal filed is not maintainable on technical grounds. Under the admitted circumstances in the present case, the Appellant has failed to substantiate ... penalty notice, therefore, she has requested that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 22.02.2025. 7. We have considered the affidavit and find that on account of non- receipt

Madhya Pradesh Anusuchit Jaati Jan Jaati Evam Pichhada Varg Kalyan Sangh, Ujjain vs. Exemption, Ujjain

ITA 408/IND/2025[2025-26]Status: HeardITAT Indore04 Dec 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 12ASection 253

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI

Nisha Fazal, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO-4(3), Kanpur-01

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 226/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 1Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application, duly supported by affidavit, 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

Hiralal Vastabhai Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward. 41(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2031/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250

application and requested for dismissal of the same. 4. After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation of delay and considering the entire factual position as explained before me and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court ... justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Therefore I condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 4 Hiralal Vasthabhi Patel

Shibu Roy, Rongpur, Cachar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Silchar

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 300/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

Section 144Section 147Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

Shibu Roy 1.3 In all these cases, the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on several authorities and has held that the grounds seeking condonation of delay were not sufficient enough to be considered for relief as per the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act. 2. Before ... always deliberate; and [6] Injustice is to be removed. In another decision from the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of condonation of delay, the important and strategic aspects that have to be kept in view in deciding the cases relating to condonation of delay have been succinctly summed

Shibu Roy, Rongpur, Cachar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Silchar

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 299/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

Section 144Section 147Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

Shibu Roy 1.3 In all these cases, the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on several authorities and has held that the grounds seeking condonation of delay were not sufficient enough to be considered for relief as per the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act. 2. Before ... always deliberate; and [6] Injustice is to be removed. In another decision from the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of condonation of delay, the important and strategic aspects that have to be kept in view in deciding the cases relating to condonation of delay have been succinctly summed

Shibu Roy, Rongpur, Cachar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Silchar

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 298/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

Section 144Section 147Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

Shibu Roy 1.3 In all these cases, the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on several authorities and has held that the grounds seeking condonation of delay were not sufficient enough to be considered for relief as per the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act. 2. Before ... always deliberate; and [6] Injustice is to be removed. In another decision from the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of condonation of delay, the important and strategic aspects that have to be kept in view in deciding the cases relating to condonation of delay have been succinctly summed

Shibu Roy, Rongpur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Silchar

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 297/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

Section 144Section 147Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

Shibu Roy 1.3 In all these cases, the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on several authorities and has held that the grounds seeking condonation of delay were not sufficient enough to be considered for relief as per the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act. 2. Before ... always deliberate; and [6] Injustice is to be removed. In another decision from the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of condonation of delay, the important and strategic aspects that have to be kept in view in deciding the cases relating to condonation of delay have been succinctly summed

District Mineral Foundation, Jharsuguda vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 574/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR and Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR

found that the appeal of the assessee is delayed by 20 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay supported by affidavits stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise ... serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals on the ground