← 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

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubanewswar

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

ITA 497/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

Odisha to provide marketing support to primary handicrafts co- operative societies since 1959. Ld AR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing of appeals before him and dismissed the appeals in limine. He submitted that the assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay ... before the ld CIT(A). Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, provides powers to the ld Commissioner of Income Appeals to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. It has been used in Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 496/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

Odisha to provide marketing support to primary handicrafts co- operative societies since 1959. Ld AR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing of appeals before him and dismissed the appeals in limine. He submitted that the assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay ... before the ld CIT(A). Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, provides powers to the ld Commissioner of Income Appeals to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. It has been used in Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before

Kanheipur Service Cooperative Society Limited, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Cuttack

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

ITA 418/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

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

barred by 394 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation application supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not object to the same. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 394 days

Ankita Dash, Cuttack vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/CTK/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.412/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2024-2025) Ankita Dash Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Plot No.C-436, Sector-6, Markat Nagar, Cda Colony, Bidanasi, Cuttack-453014 Pan No. :Alapd 8714 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-10, Mumbai, Dated 17.04.2025 For The Assessment Year 2024-2025. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 24 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Application Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay. Ld.Sr. Dr Also Did Not Object To The Same. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 24 Days & Proceed To Dispose Off The Appeal. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Filed Her Return Of Income On 31.07.2024 & The Otp Verification Which Was Supposed To Have Been Done On 30.08.2024 Was Done On 31.08.2024. Consequently

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

barred by 24 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation application supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. Ld.Sr. DR also did not object to the same. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 24 days and proceed to dispose off the appeal

Parija Construction Co.(P) Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 358/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

barred by 13 days. Though the assessee has not filed any condonation application, however, ld.AR, during the course of hearing requested for condonation of delay. Ld.Sr. DR also did not object to the same. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 13 days and proceed to dispose off the appeal

Architecture and Engineering Consultancy Services Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 Bhuabenswar, Bhubaneswar

ITA 345/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri K.C.Jena & Shri Mohit Sheth, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

barred by 04 days each. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation application supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. Ld.Sr. DR also did not object to the same. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 04 days each in said appeals and proceed ... barred by 04 days each. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation application supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. Ld.Sr. DR also did not object to the same. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 04 days each in said appeals and proceed

Architecture and Engineering Consultancy Services Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 Bhuabenswar, Bhubaneswar

ITA 344/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri K.C.Jena & Shri Mohit Sheth, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

barred by 04 days each. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation application supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. Ld.Sr. DR also did not object to the same. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 04 days each in said appeals and proceed

Architecture and Engineering Consultancy Services Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 Bhuabenswar, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 343/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.340, 342, 343, 344 & 345/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / A.Yrs : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Architecture & Engineering Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar Plot No.3443, Palasuni, Rasulgarh Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No. :Aafca 8879 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.C.Jena & Shri Mohit Sheth, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar, All Dated 31.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017, Respectively. 2. All The Five Appeals Of The Assessee Is Barred By 04 Days Each. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Application Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay. Ld.Sr. Dr Also Did Not Object To The Same. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 04 Days Each In Said Appeals & Proceed To Dispose Off All The Appeals Of The Assessee Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Jena & Shri Mohit Sheth, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

barred by 04 days each. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation application supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. Ld.Sr. DR also did not object to the same. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 04 days each in said appeals and proceed

Architecture and Engineering Consultancy Services Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 342/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.340, 342, 343, 344 & 345/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / A.Yrs : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Architecture & Engineering Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar Plot No.3443, Palasuni, Rasulgarh Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No. :Aafca 8879 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.C.Jena & Shri Mohit Sheth, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar, All Dated 31.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017, Respectively. 2. All The Five Appeals Of The Assessee Is Barred By 04 Days Each. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Application Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay. Ld.Sr. Dr Also Did Not Object To The Same. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 04 Days Each In Said Appeals & Proceed To Dispose Off All The Appeals Of The Assessee Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Jena & Shri Mohit Sheth, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

barred by 04 days each. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation application supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. Ld.Sr. DR also did not object to the same. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 04 days each in said appeals and proceed

Architecture and Engineering Consultancy Services Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 340/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.340, 342, 343, 344 & 345/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / A.Yrs : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Architecture & Engineering Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar Plot No.3443, Palasuni, Rasulgarh Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No. :Aafca 8879 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.C.Jena & Shri Mohit Sheth, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar, All Dated 31.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017, Respectively. 2. All The Five Appeals Of The Assessee Is Barred By 04 Days Each. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Application Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay. Ld.Sr. Dr Also Did Not Object To The Same. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 04 Days Each In Said Appeals & Proceed To Dispose Off All The Appeals Of The Assessee Under Consideration.

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Jena & Shri Mohit Sheth, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

barred by 04 days each. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation application supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. Ld.Sr. DR also did not object to the same. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 04 days each in said appeals and proceed

Geeti Ranjan Mohanty, Cuttack vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 220/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

barred by 31 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation application supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. Ld.Sr. DR also did not object to the same. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 31 days and proceed to dispose off the appeal

Sunil K Epari, America vs. ACIT Intl Tax, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.101/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sunil K Epari, Vs Acit, International Taxation, 123, Putnam Way Silver Spring Bhubaneswar Mechanicsburg, Foreign, United States Of America Pan No. :Abxpe 7883 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Pranaya Kumar Mishra & Shri Prashant Mishra, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2025 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), Kolkata-22, Dated 28.11.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. At The Outset, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 11 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 11 Days Delay & Proceed To Dispose Off The Appeal. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That Two Additions Are In Dispute. The First Addition Is In Respect Of Cash Deposit Of Rs.15,99,000/- & The Second

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

assessee is delayed by 11 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

Jarnail Singh, S/O Mohinder Singh vs. Income Tax Officer, Nabha, Near Railway Station

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1211/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Tribunal.

For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 69A

want of any compliance by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 4 years and 10 months. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before Tribunal. 2. The Ld. AR stated that demand notice and assessment order was served

D.Y. Patil Education Society vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax

ITA 649/PUN/2016[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Dec 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2016 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: N.A. D.Y.Patil Education Society, V The Commissioner Of 2126, „E‟ Tarabai Park, S Income Tax(Central), Kolhapur – 416003. Pune. Pan: Aaatd8919M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta, Dharmesh Shah & S R Kabra – Cas Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 01/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central), Pune Under Section 12Aa R.W.S 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.02.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(Central) In Deciding The Issue Of Registration Of The Education Society Under 5. 12Aa Of The Act Vide His Order Dt. 24-02-2016 Erred In

Section 12A

Central) failed to consider the provisions of S. 12A(1)(a) in its proper perspective. The Commissioner had then the power to condone the delay if the application was filed after one year from the date of creation of the Trust if he gets satisfied that the Trust was prevented ... scope of the enquiry envisaged under section 12AA(1) of the Act. 15. In so far as the assessee’s plea for condonation of delay for filing of the 8 application is concerned, the same in our view also deserves to be revisited by ITA No.649/PUN/2016 [A] the Commissioner

Nabarun S K U S Ltd., Nadia vs. I.T.O.Ward-41(1), Krishnanagar

ITA 89/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
Section 119Section 139Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

days in filing of the said appeal. the delay has been requested to be condoned through an affidavit as under: “Sub:-Condonation of delay under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for returns of income claiming deduction ... operative societies claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act for various assessment years from AY 2018-19 10 AY 2022-23, regarding condonation of delay in furnishing return of income and to treat such returns as 'returns furnished within the due date under sub-section (1) of section

Bhuban Mondal, Murshidabad vs. ITO, Ward 42(2), Murshidabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2138/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

beyond his means and all these things were beyond the control of the appellant. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) while declining to condone the delay and also declining to pass order on merits of the case acted against the intent of law as settled by judicial precedents that justice ... condonation prayer. The Ld. AR relied on a number of authorities to canvass the point that the Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay considering the 5 Bhuban Mondal peculiar circumstances in which the assessee found himself and should have adjudicated on merits. The Ld. AR relied on several

Girish Sanu, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Mangaluru

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

ITA 804/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee drew our attention on an application for condonation of delay filed along with an affidavit in original dated 28.7.2025 by the assessee stating the reasons for the delay. The main contention is that

Jitender Chainraj Jain, Bangalore, Karnataka vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 43(2) Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 6849/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing)

Section 254(1)

days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). The ld. AR for the assessee further submits that the assessee has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine /unadmitted. The ld. AR further submits assessment was also completed under section-144. In fact, no notice ... learned AR for the assessee submits that delay in filing appeal was not deliberate or intentional also prayed for condonation of delay. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has a good case on merit and likely to succeed, if one more opportunity is given

Kaiga Project Employees Thrift and Credit Society, Karwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Karwar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

ITA 62/PAN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

there is ordinate delay in filing these appeals before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assessee’s have filed the application/ affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit/application are reasonable explaining the sufficient cause for the delay and the Ld. DR has Page ... Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit these appeals. 3. The assessee’s have raised common grounds in respective appeals challenging the order of the CIT(A) for sustaining the denial of claim u/sec80P of the Act based

Havyaka Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamita, Kumta vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2 Karwar, Karwar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

ITA 60/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

there is ordinate delay in filing these appeals before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assessee’s have filed the application/ affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit/application are reasonable explaining the sufficient cause for the delay and the Ld. DR has Page ... Akshaya Co-Op credit society Limited & others. no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit these appeals. 3. The assessee’s have raised common grounds in respective appeals challenging the order of the CIT(A) for sustaining the denial of claim u/sec80P of the Act based