← 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

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

ITA 137/IND/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

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

Gobind Industries Private Limited, Barabanki vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, Lucknow-New, Lucknow

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

ITA 371/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 144Section 147Section 253(3)Section 69A

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 ... learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any I.T.A. No.371/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 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

New Era Public School, Rajgarh vs. Exemption Ward, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the Stay Application is dismissed as having become infructuous

ITA 128/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 144Section 246(1)Section 246(1)(a)Section 253(3)

been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application 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

Sir Syed Educational Society, Badaun vs. CIT Exemption, Lucknow

In the result, the appeals are dismissed being barred by limitation

ITA 694/LKW/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Registry of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has communicated that the appeals are time barred. The assessee has also not submitted any application for condonation of delay. Therefore, these appeals are hereby dismissed being barred by I.T.A. Nos. 693 & 694/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2024-25 2 limitation. However, the assessee will

Sir Syed Educational Society, Badaun vs. CIT Exemption, Lucknow

In the result, the appeals are dismissed being barred by limitation

ITA 693/LKW/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Registry of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has communicated that the appeals are time barred. The assessee has also not submitted any application for condonation of delay. Therefore, these appeals are hereby dismissed being barred by I.T.A. Nos. 693 & 694/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2024-25 2 limitation. However, the assessee will

Mohd Mustak, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer 6 (2), Lucknow

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

ITA 428/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.428/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-17 Mohd Mustak V. Income Tax Officer-6(2) 55K/342, Azad Nagar, Chander Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Uttar Nagar, Geetapalli, Alambagh, Pradesh-226001. Uttar Pradesh-226005. Pan:Avvpm2127L अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Puneet Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03 11 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 28 11 2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Kumar, CIT(DR)

above accounts are enclosed.” 2. The present appeal is barred by limitation for 160 days. The assessee has filed application seeking condonation of delay on the ground of medical exigency. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the application seeking condonation of delay. He contended ... Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors 167 ITR 471 (SC) hereby condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 5. Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the authorities below have grossly

Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sanitation Mission, Lucknow vs. ACIT(Exemption) Circle, Lucknow

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

ITA 360/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 11(1)(a)Section 124(3)Section 143Section 143(2)

ground that the assessee itself submitted that the requisite Form 10B was filed belatedly and that the application for condonation of delay was pending before the CIT(Exemption). 5.2 BECAUSE the assessee had duly furnished Form 10B within the stipulated time limit prescribed under the Act as such there ... requirement of seeking condonation of delay from the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), and consequently, the "ld. "CIT(A)" was not correct either on facts or in law in upholding the denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the ground that the appellant had not furnished any order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Lucknow, Lucknow vs. Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sanitation Mission, Lucknow

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

ITA 288/LKW/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 11(1)(a)Section 124(3)Section 143Section 143(2)

ground that the assessee itself submitted that the requisite Form 10B was filed belatedly and that the application for condonation of delay was pending before the CIT(Exemption). 5.2 BECAUSE the assessee had duly furnished Form 10B within the stipulated time limit prescribed under the Act as such there ... requirement of seeking condonation of delay from the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), and consequently, the "ld. "CIT(A)" was not correct either on facts or in law in upholding the denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the ground that the appellant had not furnished any order

Dr Pamod Eknathrao Jadhav, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Aurangabad

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

ITA 2381/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2381/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dr. Pramod Eknathrao Vs. Ito, Ward-1(6), Jadhav, Aurangabad. Row House No.1, Samarth Heritage, Opp. Marathwada Sanskrity Mandal Khadkeshwar, Aurangabad- 431001. Pan : Adfpj4882K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pratikh Jha Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Gurugram [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied

For Appellant: Shri Pratikh JhaFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied 2 with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing ... condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. General Ground: The order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law, contrary to facts

Parag Dattatray Inamdar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

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

ITA 2378/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148ASection 250

documents available on record. 3. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 14 days in filing the instant appeal. Application for condonation of delay along with affidavit has been filed. On perusal of the affidavit we find that the main reason for delay is on account ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), hereby condone the delay of 14 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. With the assistance of Ld. DR and available on records, we notice

Renu Sanjay Rekhi, Panvel- Raigad vs. DCIT Panvel, Panvel

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

ITA 2377/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2377/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri KushiramFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69C

Dissatisfied with the addition made by ld. Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) but apart from filing an application for condonation of delay and statement of facts assessee could not furnish any submission in support of its grounds of appeal inspite of being provided sufficient opportunity. Ld.CIT

Vikram Digvijay Kapadia L/H Late Shri. Digvijay Babubhai Kapadia, Nashik vs. ACIT Circle 1, Nashik

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

ITA 1730/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.1730/Pun/2025 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vikram Digvijay Kapadia V Acit, Legal Heir Of Late Shri S. Circle-1, Nashik. Digvijay Babubhai Kapadia, Babubhai House, Kulkarni Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002. Maharashtra. Pan: Afzpk8616E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Chinmayy Pathak – (Virtual) Revenue By Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain- Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed Legal Heir Mr.Vikram Digvijay Kapadia Of Late Shri Digvijay Babubhai Kapadia Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19 On 10.04.2024 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Dated

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 250

Delay of 381 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. Mr.Vikram Digvijay Kapadia Legal Heir of Shri Digvijay Babubhai Kapadia filed Affidavit for condonation of delay. We have perused the Affidavit and are convinced that there is reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay. Hence, Delay is condoned. Order pronounced

Prasanna Shrikant Patankar, Satara vs. ITO WD No - 04, Satara

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1693/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1693/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Prasanna Shrikant Patankar V The Income Tax Officer, No.35, Raviwar Peth, S. Ward-4, Satara. Azad Chowk, Karad, Satara – 415110. Maharashtra. Pan: Alypp1014A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sachin P. Kumar Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

appeal preferred by the appellant without appreciating the bonafide reasons for the delay and judgments passed by various courts in regard to the condonation of delay in filing the said appeal. 8. That, having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case ... assessee on account of delay of 604 days. 3 ITA No.1693/PUN/2025 [A] 3.1 Assessee had filed an Affidavit before ld.CIT(A) for condonation of Delay part of which has been reproduced by ld.CIT(A) in the order. It has been claimed by the Assessee in the Affidavit that Assessee

Apaasso Mali, Pune vs. ITO 11(1), Swargate

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

ITA 1110/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 249Section 249(2)

time. The relevant findings and observations of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC are as under : “5. Decision of the Appellate Authority on condonation of delay in filing the appeal:- As mentioned above, the appeal against the order under section 147r.w.s144r.w.s144Bdated 17-03-2023 served on 17-03-2023. This shows ... section 249(2) of the Act was 248 days. On perusal of Form No. 35 in column no 14 the appellant regarding condonation of delay submitted the following reasons "That I, Apaasso Mali, am the Appellant file an application for Condonation of delay. That I, the above-named Applicant

Appaso Sampatrao Mane, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Pune

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

ITA 1006/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 69

Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “Ground No.1:Ld CIT(A) erred in not condoning small delay and in not appreciating the sufficient cause. 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred ... facts in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the merits of the case by not condoning the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal, despite the appellant being non resident and explained sufficient cause for the delay by way of an affidavit. 1.2 The learned CIT(A) failed

Simon Pavan Kumar Moses, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warang Al

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

ITA 557/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

admitted for adjudication. 3. Ms. Malathi B. learned Sr. A.R. for the Revenue, on the other hand, did not strongly object for condonation of delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the learned Sr. A.R. for the Revenue and perused the affidavit ... reasonable and sufficient cause' for the assessee in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed date. We, therefore, condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The brief facts of the case are that

Vinod Ojha, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1231/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1231/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2016-2017) Vinod Ojha, The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Hyderabad-500012. Vs. Hyderabad – 500 057. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aahpo3171F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Kumar Pal TatedFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149

outset, there is a delay of 117 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. 3. We have heard the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee and the learned ... condonation of delay and carefully perused the contents of the petition for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the petition as under : “PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY I, VINOD OJHA S/o.Damodhar Prasad Ojha, aged about 43 years

Pusa Nanda Kumar, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 154/HYD/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.154/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2007-2008) Sri Pusa Nanda Kumar, The Dcit, Hyderabad - 500001. Central Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Acupp6100E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 153ASection 50CSection 68

outset, there is a delay of 868 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay which is also supported by the affidavit of the assessee. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that after the impugned order ... Court has observed that the Tribunal and High Court ought to have adopted justice 8 ITA.No.154/Hyd./2021 oriented and liberal approach while condoning the delay of 166 days. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has vehemently opposed to the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee

Yk 56 C Goodalur Pacb Ltd, Karur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Karur

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

ITA 2646/CHNY/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2646/Chny/2025 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2023-24 Yk 56 C Goodalur Pacb Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, Goodalur, Vs. Che-W-(191)(91), Karur – 639 206 Karur. Pan: Aabfy 0543M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P

appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to treat the assessee as in default of tax until the petition for condonation of delay u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act is disposed of by the competent authority, and thereafter dismissed the appeal. 4. The assessee ... appeal has stated that that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal, especially when the assessee’s petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the return is still pending before the competent authority. YK 56 C Goodalur PACB Ltd. :- 3 -: 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative

Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 2519/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 139Section 208Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

based on the assessed income instead of admitted income. Ground No.3 relates to the issue that the CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeals before him despite sufficient cause and reasons stated in the petition for condonation of delay. The other grounds namely Ground ... assessment year 2015-16 dismissing the appeals in limine read as follows:- “5.3 Before considering the request to condone the delay in filing of appeals as well as adjudication the case on merits, the appellant has not satisfied the conditions specified u/s 249(4). Section 249(4) lays down