← 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

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 292/RAN/2025[13-14]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

Centre for Incubation and Business Acceleration, Verna vs. Centralize Processing Centre, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru

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

ITA 152/PAN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Nov 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.152/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2024-25 ) Centre For Incubation & Vs. I T O- Exemption, Business Acceleration, Ward-1, Angel Charities, Pundalik Niwas, Angel Ashram, Panaji-403001, Verna, Salcete, Goa. Goa-403722. Pan/Gir No. Aafcc5621B (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By Shri.Mahendra Gohel.Ar Revenue By Smt. Rijula Uniyal. Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm:

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)

considering the facts and submissions observed that as per Circular.No03/2020 dated 03.01.2020 and Circular No.16/2022 dated 19.07.2022 the power for condoning the delay lies with the CBDT and therefore the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/sec11 of the Act and confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer ... erred in not considering the facts on merits and submissions on the delay. Whereas the assessee has applied for condonation of delay in filing the Form.No 10B under section 119(2)(b) of the Act with the CIT(E) and the delay of 39 days in filling the Form.NO

Toran Lal Verma, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 573/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.573/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Toran Lal Varma House No.39, Ward-3, Village: Kachandur, Post-Karanja, Bhilai-490 024 (C.G.) Pan: Akfpv6450J

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 253(3)

intent. 12. That in view of above facts and circumstances it is humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication in the interest of justice.” 3. The Ld. Sr. DR has not filed counter affidavit regarding condonation

Aditya Tractors, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Office Ward1(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, ground No. 2 raised by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 855/RJT/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 40Section 43B

No.855/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2018–19, is barred by limitation, by 93 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone of delay. The learned Counsel adverted my attention to the reasons for condonation of delay before this Tribunal and urged for a benign view and sought ... condonation of delay of 93 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, learned DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. A perusal of the reasons and sufficient cause explained by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, gives me an impression

Aditya Tractors, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Ward 1(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, ground No. 2 raised by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 352/RJT/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 40Section 43B

No.855/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2018–19, is barred by limitation, by 93 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone of delay. The learned Counsel adverted my attention to the reasons for condonation of delay before this Tribunal and urged for a benign view and sought ... condonation of delay of 93 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, learned DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. A perusal of the reasons and sufficient cause explained by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, gives me an impression

Meena Vijay Desai, Na vs. Arivs.Ward 3, Navsari, Gujarat

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

ITA 435/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 250

very outset, we noticed that there is delay of 621 days in filing present appeal and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under: 2 Meena Vijay Desai, Surat. 01. 1. That my case ... justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. From the records, we noticed that assessee was ex- parte beforeLd. CIT(A). In this regard

Madhvi Ajitkumar Ranka, Na vs. Arivs.ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 124/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Madhvi Ajitkumar Ranka, Vs. Acit, 88, Sunder Nagar, Jamalpore, Navsari Circle, Navsari – 396445 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahfpr5791K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Darshit J. Naik, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 68

submitted that the Bench may decide the matter as it thinks fit. 5. We have heard both parties on this preliminary issue of condonation of delay. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that he was unaware of the tax proceedings and could not file appeal in time before the Tribunal ... guidance on the part his earlier tax consultant who looked after his tax matter. The delay was neither deliberate nor intentional. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 6. During the course of hearing, the appellant filed an application dated 03.06.2025, seeking admission of additional evidences

Velaga Siva Parvathi, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada

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

ITA 443/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 69A

filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: - “]. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was passed ... were beyond the control of the appellant. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. Therefore, the appellant prays the hon'ble ITAT to condone the delay of 82 days in filing the appeal and pass appropriate orders in the interest of rendering substantial justice.” 3. On perusal of the contents

Korada Raju, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vizianagarm

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

ITA 438/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)

filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: - “]. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 381 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 381 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts

Mahalakshmi Sanagala, Vuyyuru vs. Inome Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudiwada

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

ITA 427/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: - “1. Assessee was served with CIT(A) order on dt. 18.03.2025, passed ... reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 41 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts

Mahesh Chandra Agarwal, Bhopal vs. CIT(A), Delhi

Appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 176/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimahesh Chandra Agrawal, Cit(A), बनाम/ Prop. M/S Swarn Pushp Nfac, Vs. Jwellers, Delhi Sarafa Chowk, Indore (Pan:Aavpa8254B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gowind Rinwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

pointed out delay of 735 days in preferring the instant appeal. In this regard the Ld. AR has filed before this tribunal a condonation of delay application which is reproduced by us as below:- BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE Appellant :Mahesh Chandra Agarwal Prop. M/s Swarn ... Pushp Jewellers, Sarafa Chowk, Bhopal-462001 PAN :AAVPA82548 Assessment Year : 2014-15 CONDONATION OF DELAY The appellant seeks to prefer an appeal before this Honourable Tribunal against the Order u/s 250 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 13/12/2022 made by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. The appellant. respectfully submits that the appeal

Guru Mahima Ashram, Mathura vs. CIT Exemption, Lucknow

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 245/LKW/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Nov 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 12A(1)(ac)

supported by facts and records.” 3. The present appeal is barred by limitation for 87 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. The explanation furnished by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is poorly drafted, although an affidavit has been filed ... Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it fit and proper, in the interest of natural justice, to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. ITA. Nos. 244 & 245/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 7 6. The facts in brief are that

Guru Mahima Ashram, Mathura vs. CIT, Exemption, Lucknow

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 244/LKW/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Nov 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 12A(1)(ac)

supported by facts and records.” 3. The present appeal is barred by limitation for 87 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. The explanation furnished by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is poorly drafted, although an affidavit has been filed ... Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it fit and proper, in the interest of natural justice, to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. ITA. Nos. 244 & 245/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 7 6. The facts in brief are that

Purnagiri Rice Mills, Shahjahanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Shahjahanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/LKW/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.251/Lkw/2017 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purnagiri Rice Mills, V. Income Tax Officer Meeran Pur Katra, Range-1(5), Shahajhanpur-242301. Shahajhanpur-242301. Pan:Aahfp6663R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28 10 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 26 11 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

course of hearing, it was noted that the appeal is barred by time for 63 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the application seeking condonation of delay ... 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. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case, the assessment was completed

Maruf Ali, Yamuna Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Yamuna Nagar

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1178/CHANDI/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Tribunal.

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144

assessed capital gains of Rs.38.47 Lacs. Though the assessee preferred further appeal, the appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable for want of condonation of delay of 165 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before Tribunal. 3. Keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and considering the background

Kailas Kantilal Kothari, Nashik vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1957/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Joshi, AR (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT (virtual)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

Year (AY) 2021-22. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 80 days in filing the instant appeal. Application for condonation of delay 2 ITA.No.1957/PUN./2025 (Kailas Kantilal Kothari) along with affidavit has been filed. Considering the reasons mentioned in the affidavit, which is mainly ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), hereby condone the delay of 80 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit it for adjudication 3. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised legal issue challenging

Kolhapur Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited, Kolhapur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 2778/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 36(1)(viia)

case of the appellant that the order was not served to him. Section 249(3) gives the CIT(Appeals) powers to condone the delay if the appellant has sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. The word used in section 249 (3) is "may" and not "shall ... essence, the phrase "sufficient cause" is not a question of principle but is a question of fact. Hence, whether to condone the delay or not, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case since 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay depends only on the facts placed by the applicant

Morumpallibayya Madhava Reddy, Bengaluru vs. ITO., Ward-1, Madanapalle

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

ITA 995/HYD/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.995/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Morumpallibayya The Income Tax Officer, Madhava Reddy, Vs. Ward-1, Madanapalle, Bengaluru–560 049. Andhra Pradesh. Pan Apipr3053B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Likith Patel Mk, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms Malathi B. Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Likith Patel MK, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS Malathi B. Sr. AR

learned CIT(A) without deciding the issue on merits. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that the delay of 674 days is an inordinate delay and assessee has not explained any sufficient cause for such delay, except shifting ... ITAT. 20. The Appellant-Assessee did not have any intention of delaying in filing of an Appeal and the Appellant prays to condone the delay of 700 days and admit the appeal and post the same for hearing at 8 ITA.No.995/Hyd./2025 an early date, in the interest

Kcvr Infra Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 986/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.986/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Kcvr Infra Projects Private Vs. Asstt. Cit Limited Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaeck2457N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C A M.V. Prasad राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Kcvr Infra Projects Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 29.03.2025 For The A.Y 2021-22. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That The Appeal Has Been Filed Before Us With A Delay Of Three Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Along With A Copy Of Affidavit Explaining The Cause Of Delay. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. Ar”)

For Appellant: C A M.V. PrasadFor Respondent: : Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. DR

delay be condoned by adopting a liberal and justice-oriented approach. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) objected to the condonation of delay, contending that the reason given by the assessee for not filing the appeal in time is not reasonable and therefore the delay should

Kondal Reddy Anumula, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 286/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

merits. 4. The learned Sr.A.R. for the Revenue, Dr. Sachin Kumar, on the other hand, opposed the petition filed by the assessee for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal, and argued that, the assessee had filed the appeal with an inordinate delay of 843 days, for which ... activities, and therefore, argued that, because of cannot be accepted. The Learned Senior A.R for the Revenue further submitted that, condonation of delay is not a matter of right for the individual, and it is for the assessee to explain each day of delay with ‘sufficient reasonable cause