“condonation of delay”

Shri Shradha Credit Souhard Sahakari Niymit Nipani, Nipani vs. ITO, Ward-2 Belgaum, Belgaum

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

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

Shivagiri Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Belagavi

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

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

Shree Mahila Credit Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Belagavi vs. ITO Ward 1 Belagavi, Belagavi

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

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

Akshaya Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Karwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), 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

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

Akshaya Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Karwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), 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

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

Akshaya Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Karwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), 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

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

Akshaya Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Karwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), 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

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

Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal, Rajkot, Gujarat vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar At- Charan Samadhiyala, Bhawan, Jetpur – 360370(Gujarat) Rajkot - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxmpp2962D (Appellant) (Respondent)

assessee for Assessment Year 2016-17, is barred by limitation by 84 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. I note that the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause ... delay in filing this appeal. However, learned DR for the revenue, opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, application, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest

Khadakala Seva Sahkari Manadli Ltd., Rajkot (Amreli) vs. The ITO Ward - 3 (1) (4) Amreli, Amreli

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.199/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2018-19 Khadakala Seva Sahkari Mandali Income Tax Officer Ltd. Ward 3(1)(4), Amreli बनाम/ Savarkundla, Amreli, 364515 Gujarat - 365650 Vs [C/O. D. R. Adhia Om Shri Padamlaya, Near Trikamrayji Haweli, 16- Jagnath Plot, Dr. Yagnik Road, Opp. Imperial Hotel, Rajkot, Gujarat 360001] "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabak3647B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Written Submission राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M:

appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee is also barred by limitation by 300 days. The assessee did not file the petition for condonation of delay, despite repeated reminders. The Learned DR for the revenue, submitted that the assessee under consideration, filed the written submission on merit, however ... file the petition for condonation of delay, therefore the delay of 300 days should not be condoned and appeal of the assessee should be dismissed.The Ld. DR Page 3 of 8 Khadakala Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. vs. ITO for the Revenue also submitted written submissions before me, which are reproduced

Anuj Kumar, Nalanda vs. ITO, Ward- 2 (3), Biharsharif

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am**

rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons, hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeals. - 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ex-parteo rder passed by the learned Assessing Officer. The ld. Counsel

DCIT, Circle 4, Patna, Dakbanglow Chauraha Patna vs. Shivendra Kumar Shahi, Sheikhpura Patna

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condoned. The Id. AR, on the other Page |2 ITA No. 229/PAT/2025 Shivendra Kumar Shahi; A.Y. 2014-15 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. 3. At the outset

Sarfaraj Mohmed Balera, Bharuch, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5), Ward (), Bharuch

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsigx Stil H./Ita No. 112/Srt/2025 (Ay 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Sarfaraj Mohmed Balera Income Tax Officer, C5 Madni Park Soc, Bharuch-392 | Gam | Ward-1(5), Bharuch, Aayakar 001 Vs Bhawan, Station Road, [Pan : Bhdpb 6343 N] Bharuch-392 001 Ardtenelf/ Appellant Wef Respondent Pafitdt #1 Sik A /Assessee By Shri Krutarth Desai, Ca Weed Sh Ix S /Revenue By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr | Aare Ct Artg/Date Of Hearing 01.09.2025 Squinot Bt Arre/Date Of Pronouncement | 28.11.2025

bring to the notice that appeal filed by the assesse is barred by delay of 121 days. The applicant submitted an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. The main reason for the condonation of delay is reproduced below: “2.1 The applicant is an individual and not well ... receipt of order the assessee hence delay may kindly be condoned. 3. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. objected the application for condonation of delay and prayed for rejection of the application and the appeal. 4. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties and find that

Sri Sahasralingeswara Swamy Temple, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Guntur

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

that the delay was due to inadvertent mistake committed by the Chartered Accountant which was neither unintentional nor deliberate. He, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice for which the Ld.DR has not raised any objection. 14. We have heard ... both the parties and gone through the petition along with the affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the assessee for condonation of delay and find there is a sufficient cause to condone hearing. 15. We find that the assessee has raised identical grounds for the A.Y.2013-14 as raised

Sri Sahasralingeswara Swamy, Ponnur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward, Guntur

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

that the delay was due to inadvertent mistake committed by the Chartered Accountant which was neither unintentional nor deliberate. He, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice for which the Ld.DR has not raised any objection. 14. We have heard ... both the parties and gone through the petition along with the affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the assessee for condonation of delay and find there is a sufficient cause to condone hearing. 15. We find that the assessee has raised identical grounds for the A.Y.2013-14 as raised

Sri Sahasralingeswara Swamy Temple, Ponnur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward, Guntur

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

that the delay was due to inadvertent mistake committed by the Chartered Accountant which was neither unintentional nor deliberate. He, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice for which the Ld.DR has not raised any objection. 14. We have heard ... both the parties and gone through the petition along with the affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the assessee for condonation of delay and find there is a sufficient cause to condone hearing. 15. We find that the assessee has raised identical grounds for the A.Y.2013-14 as raised

Sri Sahasralingeswara Swamy Temple, Ponnur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward, Guntur

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

that the delay was due to inadvertent mistake committed by the Chartered Accountant which was neither unintentional nor deliberate. He, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice for which the Ld.DR has not raised any objection. 14. We have heard ... both the parties and gone through the petition along with the affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the assessee for condonation of delay and find there is a sufficient cause to condone hearing. 15. We find that the assessee has raised identical grounds for the A.Y.2013-14 as raised

Keshav Kumar Nachani, Indore vs. DCIT-1(1), Indore

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

That the delay of 562 days is ‘very inordinate’ and the assessee has failed to give any explanation, much less ‘sufficient cause’, for condonation of delay. 16. We have considered rival contentions of both sides and perused the condonation application/affidavit filed by assessee as well as the orders of lower

Keshav Kumar Nachani, Indore vs. DCIT-1(1), Indore

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

That the delay of 562 days is ‘very inordinate’ and the assessee has failed to give any explanation, much less ‘sufficient cause’, for condonation of delay. 16. We have considered rival contentions of both sides and perused the condonation application/affidavit filed by assessee as well as the orders of lower