← 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

The Jain Kasar Samaj Sanstha, Sangli, Maharashtra vs. The CIT (Exemption), Pune, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is devoid of merits and the

ITA 2612/PUN/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2025AY 2024-2025
For Appellant: ΝΟΝΕFor Respondent: Shri Udaya Bhaskar Jakke
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

delay of 11 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. On perusal of the same, we are satisfied that the delay in filing of appeal

Savita Rameshchandra Mehta, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5705/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Savita Rameshchandra Mehta Ward 41(1)(4), Mumbai Flat No. 18, Hit Niketan Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Sps Road, Kokan Nagar, Vs. Bhandup West, Mumbai – 400078. Pan/Gir No. Aahpm3210B (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. L. Rathi Respondent By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry, J M:

For Appellant: Shri R. L. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, SR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69B

also supported the aforesaid reason by filing delay sworn affidavit. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and Savita Rameshchandra Mehta reasons stated for condonation of delay as plausible and reasonable, the delay is condoned. 3. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the impugned order passed

Viswanathan Vettri Vendhen, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5652/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Viswanathan Vettri Dcit, Circle 42(3)(1), M 108, The Retreat By Mint Mumbai Homes, Senthil Nagar, Vs. Sowripalayam Road, Coimbatore – 641028. Pan/Gir No. Aclpv8496Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None Respondent By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry, J M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, SR
Section 147Section 250

Appellant met a senior tax counsel, who advised that appeal could still be filed with Hon'ble ITAT along with a petition requesting condonation of delay and Appeal could be filed only with Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai. 2 Viswanathan Vettri Hence, there was a delay of 243 days in filing ... appeal is decided on merits. In view of the above facts and submissions, the Appellant sincerely prays the Hon’ble ITAT to condone the delay in filing the appeal.” 4. Considering the reasons stated by the assessee, as reproduced above, as reasonable, plausible and unintentional, the delay is condoned, however

Dhanshri Dilip Gangwani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-31(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5472/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Dhanshri Dilip Income Tax Officer, Gangwani, Ward-31(2)(1), Plot No.14/114, Akshar Chsl, Kautilya Bhavan, Motilal Nagar No.1, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Opp. Best Colony, Bandra (East), Goregaon (West), Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400 104 Pan: Boopk8538J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ketan Vajani, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Was Delay Of 210 Days In Filing 1St Appeal Before Ld. Commissioner Challenging The Assessment Order Dt. 24.04.2023 U/S 147 Read With 144(B) Of The Act, On Which The Assessee Though Claimed Before The Ld. Commissioner That Her Mother In Law Had Suffered Severe Health Issues & For That Reason She Remained Hospitalized For Long Time. Therefore, The Assessee Went To Her Native Place At Chindwara

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vajani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 250

medical treatment, her mother law is no more in this world. Though Ld. Commissioner considered the reasons stated by the Assessee for condonation of delay but not being convinced with the same, ultimately rejected the appeal of the assessee, on the point of imitation. 3. The Ld. Counsel therefore ... plausible reason. 5. Considering the aforesaid reasons demonstrated by the assessee as bonafide and unintentional and plausible, this court is inclined to condone the delay occurred in filing of 1st appeal, however subject to deposit of Rs. 11,000/- in the Revenue Department under “other head” within 30 days from

Shipra Fabrics Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-Cent-Cir 8(3), Mumbai

ITA 5011/MUM/2024[A.Y 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT

Paschion Restaurants Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4335/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Years: 2013-14]

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 250

assessee on the same day of passing it through online portal/email id thus the appeal is delayed by 2061 days and not condoned the delay as no sufficient cause for delay was stated by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order, Assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee ... documents during the course of hearing of appeal. 5. The present appeal is field delayed by 99 days for which an application for condonation of delay was field wherein it is stated that On generous consideration of the above circumstances, it is submitted that the delay in filing the present

Paschion Restaurants Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4334/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 4331 To 4334/Del/2025 [Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15]

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 250

appeal before ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 2052 days which was dismissed by ld. CIT(A) in limine by not condoning the delay by observing that no sufficient cause for delay was stated by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order, Assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal ... documents during the course of hearing of appeal. 5. The present appeal is field delayed by 99 days for which an application for condonation of delay was field wherein it is stated that On generous consideration of the above circumstances, it is submitted that the delay in filing the present

Paschion Restaurants Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax, Ghaziabad

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4333/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 4331 To 4334/Del/2025 [Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15]

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 250

appeal before ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 2052 days which was dismissed by ld. CIT(A) in limine by not condoning the delay by observing that no sufficient cause for delay was stated by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order, Assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal ... documents during the course of hearing of appeal. 5. The present appeal is field delayed by 99 days for which an application for condonation of delay was field wherein it is stated that On generous consideration of the above circumstances, it is submitted that the delay in filing the present

Paschion Restaurants Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4332/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 4331 To 4334/Del/2025 [Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15]

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 250

appeal before ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 2052 days which was dismissed by ld. CIT(A) in limine by not condoning the delay by observing that no sufficient cause for delay was stated by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order, Assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal ... documents during the course of hearing of appeal. 5. The present appeal is field delayed by 99 days for which an application for condonation of delay was field wherein it is stated that On generous consideration of the above circumstances, it is submitted that the delay in filing the present

Paschion Restaurants Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4331/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 4331 To 4334/Del/2025 [Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15]

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 250

appeal before ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 2052 days which was dismissed by ld. CIT(A) in limine by not condoning the delay by observing that no sufficient cause for delay was stated by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order, Assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal ... documents during the course of hearing of appeal. 5. The present appeal is field delayed by 99 days for which an application for condonation of delay was field wherein it is stated that On generous consideration of the above circumstances, it is submitted that the delay in filing the present

Whole Stationery Product (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-27(3), Delhi

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

ITA 4323/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalwhole Stationery Products Pvt. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-27(3), 19 Igi, Gurgaon Road, Vs. Delhi. Kapashera, Delhi-110097 Pan-Aaacw0263A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 06.12.2023 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 518 Days For Which An Application For Condonation Of Delay Is Filed Wherein It Is Stated That The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Was Sent On Incorrect Mail Id & When The Assessee Has Received The Follow Up Communication From The Ao, It Had Come To The Knowledge Of The Assessee About Whole Stationery Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito The Passing Of The Appellate Order. It Is In This Background, A Request Is Made To Condone The Delay.

Section 147

Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The present appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 518 days for which an application for condonation of delay is filed wherein it is stated that the order of ld. CIT(A) was sent on incorrect mail id and when the assessee has received ... Whole Stationery Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO the passing of the appellate order. It is in this background, a request is made to condone the delay. 3. Heard the parties on delay. There was delay of 518 days in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons stated

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. M/S Ace Mega Structure Private Limited, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4115/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

Section 147Section 68

disqualified. ITA Nos.4115 & 4067/Del/2025 c. The struck-off companies were restricted from using their bank accounts. d. Genuine corporates were given benefit of condonation of delay scheme for filing the returns. In view of the above, it was felt necessary to make enquiries both with Hallow Securities

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. M/S Bright Buildtech Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4106/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year 2021-22] Dcit Vs M/S. Bright Buildtech Pvt.Ltd., Central Circle -1, D-35, Anand Vihar & Vihar, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, Anand Vihar, S.O-East Delhi, Noida-201301. Delhi-110092 Pan-Aaccb7981J Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

annual returns were disqualified. c. The struck-off companies were restricted from using their bank accounts. d. Genuine corporates were given benefit of condonation of delay scheme for filing the returns. In view of the above, it was felt necessary to make enquiries both with Hallow Securities

Ace Mega Structures Private Limited, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT/ACIT Cen Cir, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4067/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

Section 147Section 68

disqualified. ITA Nos.4115 & 4067/Del/2025 c. The struck-off companies were restricted from using their bank accounts. d. Genuine corporates were given benefit of condonation of delay scheme for filing the returns. In view of the above, it was felt necessary to make enquiries both with Hallow Securities

Mohd. Alam Quershi, Moradabad vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 3986/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalmohd. Alam Quershi, Income Tax Officer, 0, Gol Kothi, Depduty Ganj, Ward-1(1), Moradabad-244001, Vs. Moradabad. Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Aadpq4002B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Ca & Shri P.K. Mishra, Ca Department By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr 19.11.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A) In Short], Dated 17.02.2025 In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10282979 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Dated 19.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened On The Basis Of Information Received That There Were Larger Credits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee & There Is Mismatch In The Income Declared By The Assessee & Credits In The Bank Account & Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 06.04.2021. Mohd. Alam Qureshi Vs. Ito Thereafter, In Terms Of The Order Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Union Of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal & Ors. In Civil Appeal No. 3005/2002, The Said Notice Was Treated As Notice U/S 148A(2) Of The Act. After Passing The Order U/S 148A(D) Of The Act, A Fresh Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 29.07.2022. In Response, The Assessee Filed The Return On 28.08.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 3,90,230/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B At An Income Of Rs. 58,64,382/- By Making Addition Of Rs. 54,74,132/-.

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 148A(2)

appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 49 days for which an application for condonation of delay was filed. As per said petition, it was stated that the assessee was engaged one Chartered Accountant for filing the appeal before ... gain anything by filing the appeal late. Mohd. Alam Qureshi vs. ITO There is no mala fide imputable to the assessee. Accordingly, we condoned the delay in the instant appeal and admit the same for adjudication. 6. Before us, ld. AR for the assessee submits that first notice for reopening

Goswami Bhagwan Lal Educational Society, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward Exemption, Faridabad

ITA 2238/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10Section 10(230)Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

directory in nature and not mandatary; hence, the same was condonable in view of the above contentions/arguments/submissions and that was why the CBDT condoned the delay in filing the audit report in Form No. 10B for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 even without filing the condonation petition. However ... above observations that the delay in filing Form No. 10B is a curable defect, may consider filing Form No. 10B and gets the condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10B decided by the concerned Income Tax Authority and the issue of allowability of alternate claim of deduction under section

Somendra Pachauri, Etah vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(1), Etah

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 321/AGR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the same upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay. 4. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the assessee on the ground, in addition to others, that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred ... advance the cause of justice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find the cause of delay sufficient and condone the delay caused in filing first appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, we deem it just and appropriate to remit the matter back

Rajaram Agrawal, Chakradharpur vs. ITO, Chaibasa

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 92/RAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.92/Ran/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-2017) Rajaram Agrawal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Chaibasa Ward No.7, Kali Mandir, Chakradharpur, West Singhbhum, Chakradharpur, Jharkhand स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aejpa 5952 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ritesh Kumar Jha, Adv राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Kolkata, Dated 23.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2016- 2017. 2. Shri Ritesh Kumar Jha, Ld.Ar Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld. Ar That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Time Barred By 314 Days. It Was The Prayer That The Delay May Be Condoned & Appeal Of The Assessee May Be Adjudicated. 4. I Have Perused The Records. The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee On For Condonation Of Delay Reads As Follow:-

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Kumar Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr
Section 44A

condoned and appeal of the assessee may be adjudicated. 4. I have perused the records. The affidavit filed by the assessee on for condonation of delay reads as follow:- 2 3 5. The appellate the order of the ld. CIT(A) was passed on 23.03.2024. The assessee has attached certain ... given is that there is medical emergency and, therefore, I was there was reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, I condone the delay and the appeal of the assessee is admitted to be disposed off on merits. 6. On merits, it was submitted by the ld.AR

Kirtiman Singh, Ranchi vs. ACIT, C. C.-2, Ranchi

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

ITA 294/RAN/2025[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi26 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.292, 293 & 294/Ran/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Kirtiman Singh, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, 357/A, Professor Colony, Ranchi Karam Toli, Ranchi-834008 Jharkhand स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Awmps 5592 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr

appeals of the assessee are delayed by 393 days each for which the assessee has filed an affidavit stating therein sufficient reason for condonation of delay which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR has no objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, I condone the delay

Kirtiman Singh, Ranchi vs. ACIT, C. C.-2, Ranchi

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

ITA 293/RAN/2025[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi26 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.292, 293 & 294/Ran/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Kirtiman Singh, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, 357/A, Professor Colony, Ranchi Karam Toli, Ranchi-834008 Jharkhand स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Awmps 5592 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr

appeals of the assessee are delayed by 393 days each for which the assessee has filed an affidavit stating therein sufficient reason for condonation of delay which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR has no objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, I condone the delay