BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

182 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 253(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai328Delhi222Chennai216Indore186Ahmedabad182Kolkata169Karnataka139Jaipur137Surat122Bangalore108Lucknow107Chandigarh102Pune69Raipur47Cochin45Panaji43Hyderabad43Nagpur40Cuttack40Rajkot37Allahabad35Patna28Jabalpur22Jodhpur22Varanasi20Visakhapatnam17Guwahati14Amritsar12Ranchi9Agra8SC4Telangana2Calcutta1Andhra Pradesh1Rajasthan1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 12A63Addition to Income44Condonation of Delay41Limitation/Time-bar38Section 143(3)34Section 271(1)(c)30Section 526Exemption26Section 132

SHRI MAHESH P. GANDHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-10,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1022/AHD/2018[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2022AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1022 To 1025/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: (1992-1993 To 1995-1996) Shri Mahesh P. Gandhi, A.C.I.T., D-404, 5Th Floor, Vs. Circle-10, Dharnidhar Tower, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr.D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 292BSection 69

Showing 1–20 of 182 · Page 1 of 10

...
22
Section 2(15)21
Section 1119
Section 80I18

condoning the delay. In this regard, we note that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT reported in 280 ITR 357 has held that: “3. The Supreme Court in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798held as under: "In exercising discretion under section

VINEETSINGH GULABSINGH RORE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 868/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 253(5)Section 263Section 69

253(5) of the Act. praying for the condonation of the delay. Regret for Delay: I express deep regret for the delay in filing this appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT") and reiterate that the delay was unintentional and occurred in good faith. Plea for Justice: I would like to humbly bring to the esteemed Tribunal's attention

SHRI PRAVINKUMAR HIRALAL VORA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 153/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.153/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Pravinkumar Hiralal Vora, D.C.I.T., A-71, Trithbhumi Apartment, Vs. Circle-2, Nr. Thakorbhai Desai Hall, Ahmedabad. Law Garden, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Abjpv2934B

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R
Section 119Section 143(2)Section 254

condoning the delay. In this regard we note that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT reported in 280 ITR 357 has held that : “3. The Supreme Court in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798held as under "In exercising discretion under section

TIKI TAR INDUSTRIES BARODA LTD,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-2, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 166/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2014-15 Tiki Tar Industries Baroda Ltd. Pr.Cit-2 8Th Floor, Neptune Tower Vs Vadodara. Baroda Productivity Council Alkapuri, Vadodara Pan : Aadct 8382 Q

For Appellant: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 3

3. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended that these being sufficient cause for the impugned delay, in the interest of justice the same be condoned. He relied on various case laws in this regard. 4. The ld.DR vehemently opposed the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee stating that there was inordinate delay of 262 days

MAHESHRAJ CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 791/AHD/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.791/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 1999-2000 Dcit, Mahesraj Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Circle-4, Vs. 141, Phase Ii, Gidc, Vatva, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-382330 Pan:Aabcm0424C

For Appellant: Smt Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Talwani, Sr.DR
Section 234BSection 271Section 28Section 36Section 80H

3. The Supreme Court in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798held as under : "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas

REAL CARGO MUMBAI,ARVALLI vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MODASA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 268/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad. This Appeal In Ita No.268/Ahd/2024 For Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Filed By The Assessee Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 25.09.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi U/S. 250 Of The Income- Tax Act,1961 , Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1056508501(1), Which Has In Turn Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 143(3) Read With Section 254 Of The Income-Tax Act 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Divatia ,Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav,CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 189(1)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 254Section 40

253(3) of the 1961 Act. The ld. CIT-DR fairly submitted that the matter is left to the discretion of the Bench, although the department has objection to the aforesaid delay. One of the reasons for the delay as averred by the assessee in its application for delay in filing this appeal was that the appellate order was posted

LALITADEVI N. TIBREWALA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 318/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 318/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Lalitadevi N. Tibrewala, Pr. Commissioner Of 6, Professor Colony, Vs. Income Tax, Nr. Vijay Cross Roads, Ahmedabad-5 Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aappt0073M

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT, D.R with Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 263Section 54

3. The Supreme Court in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798held as under : "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas

PRISM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1235/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1235 & 1236/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2003-04 वष" Prism Industries Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Tb-5, Vrundavan Estate, Vs Income-Tax, Pashabhai Park, Race Course Circle-4, Circle, Baroda Baroda Pan : Aabcp 7162 Q Assessee By : Shri Mj Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement In Court : 10/04/2018 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri MJ Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression "sufficient cause" employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

PRISM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1236/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1235 & 1236/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2003-04 वष" Prism Industries Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Tb-5, Vrundavan Estate, Vs Income-Tax, Pashabhai Park, Race Course Circle-4, Circle, Baroda Baroda Pan : Aabcp 7162 Q Assessee By : Shri Mj Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement In Court : 10/04/2018 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri MJ Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Singh, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression "sufficient cause" employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

THE GOVERNMENT SERVANTS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), VADODARA

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

ITA 442/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 442/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 The Government Servants Co-Op. Credit I.T.O., Society Ltd., Vs. Ward-3(1)(2), Hindi Bhavan, Vadodara. Sanstha Vasahat Raopura, Vadodara-390001. Pan: Aabat5146J

For Appellant: Shri Amrin Pathan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr..D.R
Section 5Section 56Section 80P(2)

3. The Supreme Court in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798held as under : "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas

ATULKUMAR KIRTILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2485/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T.C. Meena, Sr.DR
Section 249Section 253Section 5

3) of section 249 contemplates that the ld.CIT(A) may admit an appeal after expiry of relevant period of limitation, if he satisfies that there was a sufficient cause for not present it within that period. The expression “sufficient” cause employed in sub-section 5 of section 253 which authorise Tribunal to condone the delay

SHRI KHAMBHAT TALUKA SARVAJANIK KELAVANI MANDAL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-EXEMPTION, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 598/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the aforesaid ground or grounds if necessary.” 6. As per the provisions of Section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal after expiry of the prescribed period, if it is satisfied that there was ‘sufficient cause’ for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed

SHRI MANISH KUMARPAL SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)2,, VADODARA

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2084/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2083 & 2084/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Manish Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) Prakash Chemicals Agencies Vs Baroda. Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra 390 002. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dilip Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) C/O. Trans Indiana Mfg.Co. Vs Baroda. Prakash Chemicals Agencies Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra.

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.L. Meena, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 50C

condonation of delay on the ground that if in the case of co-owners lower sale consideration for computing the capital gain can be deemed as per section 50C, the same yardstick deserves to be adopted in their cases. 6. With the assistance of the ld.representatives, I have gone through the record carefully. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates

SHRI DILIP KUMARPAL SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)2,, VADODARA

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2085/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2083 & 2084/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Manish Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) Prakash Chemicals Agencies Vs Baroda. Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra 390 002. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dilip Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) C/O. Trans Indiana Mfg.Co. Vs Baroda. Prakash Chemicals Agencies Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra.

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.L. Meena, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 50C

condonation of delay on the ground that if in the case of co-owners lower sale consideration for computing the capital gain can be deemed as per section 50C, the same yardstick deserves to be adopted in their cases. 6. With the assistance of the ld.representatives, I have gone through the record carefully. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates

SHRI PINAKIN KUMARPAL SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)2,, VADODARA

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2088/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2083 & 2084/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Manish Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) Prakash Chemicals Agencies Vs Baroda. Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra 390 002. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dilip Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) C/O. Trans Indiana Mfg.Co. Vs Baroda. Prakash Chemicals Agencies Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra.

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.L. Meena, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 50C

condonation of delay on the ground that if in the case of co-owners lower sale consideration for computing the capital gain can be deemed as per section 50C, the same yardstick deserves to be adopted in their cases. 6. With the assistance of the ld.representatives, I have gone through the record carefully. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates

SHRI DILIP KUMARPAL SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)2,, VADODARA

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2086/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2083 & 2084/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Manish Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) Prakash Chemicals Agencies Vs Baroda. Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra 390 002. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dilip Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) C/O. Trans Indiana Mfg.Co. Vs Baroda. Prakash Chemicals Agencies Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra.

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.L. Meena, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 50C

condonation of delay on the ground that if in the case of co-owners lower sale consideration for computing the capital gain can be deemed as per section 50C, the same yardstick deserves to be adopted in their cases. 6. With the assistance of the ld.representatives, I have gone through the record carefully. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates

SHRI PINAKIN KUMARPAL SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)2,, VADODARA

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2087/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2083 & 2084/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Manish Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) Prakash Chemicals Agencies Vs Baroda. Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra 390 002. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dilip Kumarpal Shah Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) C/O. Trans Indiana Mfg.Co. Vs Baroda. Prakash Chemicals Agencies Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodra.

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Modiani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.L. Meena, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 50C

condonation of delay on the ground that if in the case of co-owners lower sale consideration for computing the capital gain can be deemed as per section 50C, the same yardstick deserves to be adopted in their cases. 6. With the assistance of the ld.representatives, I have gone through the record carefully. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates

SHRIRAM TUBES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, subject to payment of Rs

ITA 28/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.27 & 28/Ahd/2019 [Asstt.Year: 2007-08]

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Pipara, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Aparna Agrawal, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

delay as stated by the CIT(Appeals) in his appellate order dated 13/11/2018.” 8. With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there

SHRIRAM TUBES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, subject to payment of Rs

ITA 27/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.27 & 28/Ahd/2019 [Asstt.Year: 2007-08]

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Pipara, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Aparna Agrawal, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

delay as stated by the CIT(Appeals) in his appellate order dated 13/11/2018.” 8. With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there

SANDEEPKUMAR MITHULAL MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(10), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1002/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1002/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Sandeepkumar Mithulal Mehta, I.T.O., 7, Rajasthan Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(10), Opp. Meghdoot Petrol Pump, Ahmedabad. Sahibaug, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Goyal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana Sr. DR
Section 5

condoning the delay. In this regard we note that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT reported in 280 ITR 357 has held that : “3. The Supreme Court in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798 held as under: "In exercising discretion under section