← 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

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 573/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

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 572/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

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 571/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

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

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 570/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

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 569/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

District Mineral Foundation, Jharsuguda vs. The ACIT, Exemption Circle, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 568/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Chakraborty, Id CIT DR and

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 Id AR that the Id CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals on the ground

District Mineral Foundation, Jharsuguda vs. The ACIT, Exemption Circle, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 567/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

Omprakash Ramnivas Soni L/H. of Harish Omprakash Soni, Vapi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above

ITA 656/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Buayananda Pruseth

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)Section 69A

copy of death certificate of late shri Harish Omprakash Soni. Assessee has submitted that the delay was not intentional and requested to condone the delay in the interest of justice. Ld. Sr. DR for revenue did not raise objection to the condonation request of the assessee. 3.1 After hearing both ... other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of the non-deliberate delay. Accordingly, the request for condonation of delay is allowed and the appeal is admitted for hearing. Nevertheless, to prevent such laxity in future and to impress upon the assessee the importance

Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Kanuru vs. ITO, TDS, Ward(1), Eluru

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

ITA 29/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.29/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2019-20) Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Civil The Income Tax Officer (Tds)-Ward-1 Eluru – 534001 Supplies Corporation Limited Andhra Pradesh 10-152/1, 4Th Floor Sai Towers, Ashok Nagar Bandar Road, Kanuru – 520007 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabca7161R]

Section 154Section 201(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds: - “1. The order of Ld.NFAC not condoning the delay in filing the appeal without considering the condonation petition and submissions with settled case laws confirming the order U/S. 154 is erroneous in law, contrary to facts and probabilities ... case and against the principles of equity, natural law and justice. 2. The Ld.NFAC not condoned the delay in filing of appeal as no sufficient cause has been shown U/s. 249(3) of the IT Act for failure of filing the appeal within in the limitation U/s.249

Syed Mohammed Asad Ullah Hussaini, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 268/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.268/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Syed Mohammed Asad Vs. Acit, Ullah Hussaini, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Abfph0148G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, Dated 14.09.2023, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, ”Ao”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 153C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 28.03.2022, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(Appeals) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 69

prompted by any lackadaisical conduct on his part. Our aforesaid view that a liberal approach should be taken while considering the application seeking condonation of delay is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward ... Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata vs. Axis Overseas Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2425/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc 1(1), Kolkata Axis Overseas Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700107, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca7497L Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

accordingly, the delay may be condoned. The Axis Overseas Limited; A.Y. 2013-14 ld. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing as the reasons cited

Hemchand Chintaman Patil, Thane vs. ITO, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6320/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareshwar Chidarahemchand Chintaman Patil, Vs. Income Tax Officer 202, Lovely Palace No.2, Qureshi Mansion, Kharigaon, B. P. Road, 2Nd Floor, Gokhale Bhayander (East), Road, Naupada, Teen Thane - 401105. Haath Naka, Thane (W), Thane – 400602. Pan/Gir No. Amapp3180E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. Dr.)

Section 249Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

same was time barred the operative portion of the order of Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced herein below: 2. Condonation of delay 2.1 As per From No. 35, the appeal is stated to be filed out of time. It is seen that while the impugned order sought to be challenged ... case of the appellant that the order was not served to him. Section 249(3) gives the CIT (Appeals) powers to condone the delay if the appellant has sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. The word used in section 249 (3) is "may" and not "shall

Canara Bank (E-Syndicate) Bandra West II Branch, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal under consideration are allowed

ITA 6312/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan & Mrs. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 133Section 201(1)Section 250

appeal, on which the assessee has claimed as under: - “The appellant petitioner wishes to submit the following in support of its application for condonation of delay: An order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 30-03-2021. Further, an order ... though refuted the prayer of the Assessee but not the factual aspects, demonstrated above. 5. Considering the reasons stated by the assessee for condonation of delay, which are duly supported with duly sworn affidavit dated 26.11.2025 of Ms. Supriya Desai, Chief Manager of Canara Bank, Bandra West Mumbai, as genuine

Canara Bank (E-Syndicate) Bandra West II Branch, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal under consideration are allowed

ITA 6310/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan & Mrs. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 133Section 201(1)Section 250

appeal, on which the assessee has claimed as under: - “The appellant petitioner wishes to submit the following in support of its application for condonation of delay: An order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 30-03-2021. Further, an order ... though refuted the prayer of the Assessee but not the factual aspects, demonstrated above. 5. Considering the reasons stated by the assessee for condonation of delay, which are duly supported with duly sworn affidavit dated 26.11.2025 of Ms. Supriya Desai, Chief Manager of Canara Bank, Bandra West Mumbai, as genuine

Mohd Akram Abdul Latif Ansari, Bhiwandi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Kalyan

ITA 3970/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Mohd. Akram Abdul Latif Ansari Ito Ward 1(1) Gala No. 02, Mh No. 71, More Mohan Plaza, Near Building, Kotergate Road Vs. Poddar School Kap Kaneri, Bhiwandi Wayale Nagar, Thane, Maharashtra-421 302. Khadagpada, Kalyan Pan : Adnpa2221M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pravin SalunkheFor Respondent: Shri Punit Jhabak
Section 142(1)Section 69A

passed against him. Since the delay was not intentional or deliberate, the Ld. AR of the appellant sought mercy and requested to condone the delay and give one more opportunity to explain the sources of cash deposited into bank account and other additions. 4. Ld. DR opposed giving one more ... opportunity to the appellant and also plea of condonation of delay by Ld. AR of the appellant. 5. Heard both sides. After hearing Ld. AR of the appellant and also after perusing the written submission including affidavit filed by the appellant, the Bench is of the opinion that the delay

Sudhir Awana, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle -5(3)(1), Noida

In the result, aal the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6077/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year 2016-17] Sudhir Awana, Vs Acit, Circle 5(3)(1), F-15, Sector-20, Gautam Budh Gautam Budh Nagar, Nagar, Noida, Up 201301 Noida, Up Pan: Abmpa0354N 201305 Appellant Respondent Mr. Pancham Sethi, Ca Assessee By Department By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.09.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am:

Section 144Section 250

Ghaziabad/1-567/2018-19 dated 12.1.2023 for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. This appeal is filed delayed by 361 days and an application for condonation of delay was filed wherein it is stated by the assessee that due to negligence of Manager Finance and Accounts Shri Deepak Kumar who was pre-occupied ... delay be condoned and appeal be admitted for adjudication. 3. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR for the Revenue objected to the condonation of delay. 4. Heard both the parties. Considering the facts stated by AR of the assessee in the petition filed for condonation of delay, we find

Santosh Kumar, Surguja vs. ITO - 1 Ambikapur, Ambikapur

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

ITA 671/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.671/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

point No.14 (whether there is delay in filing appeal) in Form 35. Further, the assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. That since the appeal was filed belatedly in terms with Section 249(2) of the Act, the said appeal ... whether there was sufficient reasons for such huge delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall first consider the condonation of delay of 5 years 11 months 4 days in case of the assesse in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act and thereafter

Shree Prasad Jewellers, Rourkela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rourkela

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 177/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.177/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Shree Prasad Jewellers, Vs Ito, Ward-1, Rourkela Sai Bihar, Sundargarh-770001 Pan No. :Abgfs 9081 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 18.09.2025 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. At The Outset, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 10 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Of Application Along With Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, Which Are Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 10 Days Delay & Proceed To Dispose Off The Appeal. 3. The Ld. Ar During The Course Of Hearing Submitted A Chart Stating Therein The Surviving Period Of Notice Issued U/S.148 Of The Act & Submitted That As Per The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151(2)Section 3(1)

assessee is delayed by 10 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation of application along with affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay

Shankar, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 6 (1), Patna

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

ITA 159/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 250

barred by limitation in filing the appeal by 306 days. However, the assessee has filed a petition before the ITAT requesting for condonation of delay of 306 days for the reason that he was not in a condition to file any reply because he was suffering from acute diabetes ... appeal, due to which there is a delay of 306 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he has pleaded to condone the delay. 1.2. We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned in the petition seeking condonation of delay and are of the view

Gajamfar Ali, Rohru vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Rampur, Rampur

ITA 1248/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: us.2. The Ld. AR, drawing attention to assessee's background, pleaded for adjudication of appeal on merits. It has been stated that quantum appeal is already pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeals.3. Considering the fact that the quantum appeal would have direct bearing on impugned penalties as levied by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) & u/s 271A, these penalties are to be adjudicated on merits in the light of quantum appeal. Therefore, the appe

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Sharma (Advocate) (Virtual)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Rs.5,01,260/- u/s 271(1)(c). The impugned orders of Ld. CIT(A) have dismissed the appeals in limine for want of condonation of delay of 139 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. The Ld. AR, drawing attention to assessee’s background, pleaded