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.

225 results for “condonation of delay”+ Deductionclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai1,697Mumbai1,497Delhi997Pune993Bangalore944Kolkata674Patna658Ahmedabad417Hyderabad405Jaipur303Cochin261Nagpur242Chandigarh225Indore159Lucknow144Raipur134Surat119Rajkot96Visakhapatnam95Panaji92Cuttack68Amritsar54Dehradun33SC32Agra32Jodhpur29Karnataka22Calcutta21Guwahati18Allahabad15Varanasi13Jabalpur10Ranchi9Telangana5Orissa5Rajasthan3Kerala2Punjab & Haryana2Andhra Pradesh1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 26340Addition to Income36Deduction34Condonation of Delay27Section 143(1)24Limitation/Time-bar23Section 25022Section 14722Section 80I

DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNANAGAR vs. M/S SYMBIOSIS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD., YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 326/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Due Date As Prescribed In Section 139(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Whereas The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income After The Due Date.

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80I

delay of 46 days in filing return of income was condoned and deduction u/s 80IC was allowed for assessment year

SH. RAJIV KUMAR,MOHALI vs. ITO , WARD -1,, SANGRUR

Showing 1–20 of 225 · Page 1 of 12

...
21
TDS17
Penalty16
Disallowance16

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 388/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jan 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)

delay of 37 days in filing the appeal by the assessee was beyond its control. Therefore the same is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 6. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition

THE KOTLA BHARI MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY LTD.,KHANNA vs. ITO, KHANNA, KHANNA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 381/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(b)

delay of 3350 days, attributed to inadequate legal advice, and supported by an affidavit. However, the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on the ground of being time-barred, rejecting the request for condonation. The Assessing Officer, through automated processing at CPC Bengaluru, had disallowed the deduction

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,PARWANOO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 410/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, Hon'ble Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally. We may make reference to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

condone the delay in filing the appeals and proceed to decide them on merit. 7. The common issue involved in all these appeals is whether assessee deserves to be treated as assessee in default ITA No.410, 748,777 &778/CHD/2025 A.Y.2013-4 to 2016-17 7 u/s 201(1) and also liable to interest u/s 201(1A) of the Income

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,BAIJNATH vs. ITO(TDS), PALAMPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 778/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, Hon'ble Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally. We may make reference to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

condone the delay in filing the appeals and proceed to decide them on merit. 7. The common issue involved in all these appeals is whether assessee deserves to be treated as assessee in default ITA No.410, 748,777 &778/CHD/2025 A.Y.2013-4 to 2016-17 7 u/s 201(1) and also liable to interest u/s 201(1A) of the Income

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,BAIJNATH vs. ITO(TDS), PALAMPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 748/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, Hon'ble Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally. We may make reference to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

condone the delay in filing the appeals and proceed to decide them on merit. 7. The common issue involved in all these appeals is whether assessee deserves to be treated as assessee in default ITA No.410, 748,777 &778/CHD/2025 A.Y.2013-4 to 2016-17 7 u/s 201(1) and also liable to interest u/s 201(1A) of the Income

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,BAIJNATH vs. ITO(TDS), PALAMPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 777/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, Hon'ble Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally. We may make reference to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

condone the delay in filing the appeals and proceed to decide them on merit. 7. The common issue involved in all these appeals is whether assessee deserves to be treated as assessee in default ITA No.410, 748,777 &778/CHD/2025 A.Y.2013-4 to 2016-17 7 u/s 201(1) and also liable to interest u/s 201(1A) of the Income

ALLAHABAD BANK NOW INDIAN BANK,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS CIRCLE), PANCHKULA

In the result, the appellant's appeal is DISMISSED

ITA 292/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 292/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Allahabad Bank, Vs. The Dcit बनाम (Tds Circle), Now Indian Bank Panchkula Sco 12A, Sector 11, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Rtka02368C अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri U.S. Aggarwal, Advocate & Shri Manuj Bansal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Shakti Singh, Jcit Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri U.S. Aggarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Shakti Singh, JCIT Sr. DR
Section 201Section 246ASection 249(3)Section 250Section 253

deduction of TDS. 5. That Ld. CIT(Appeals) has failed to establish that thus order passed totally delay in filing appeal is intentional and wrong and illegal casual approach of appellant. Thus order passed by CIT(A) ignoring correct facts and reasonable cause is totally wrong and illegal. 6. That the order passed by learned CIT (Appeals

DEVI DAYAL,KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , KAITHAL

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 899/CHANDI/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 899/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The Ito, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajpd5851H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 7. A perusal of the ground of appeal would reveal that assessee has taken five grounds of appeal, however, his grievance revolves around two-fold of issues, namely ; a) The ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the re- opening of assessment, A.Y.2008-09 6 b) The ld. CIT (Appeals

THE DOL COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,VPO AGHWANI vs. ITO DHARAM SHALA, DHARAMSHALA

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

ITA 163/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 163/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Dol Cooperative Vs. The Ito, बनाम Dharamshala Agricultural Service Society Limited, Vpo Aghwani, Tehsil Jawalamukhi, Kangra Hp "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadat6246M अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him and the appeal being late and also according to the CIT(A), there was no sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal and, hence, dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the issue of delay in filing of appeal. 4. The assessee had filed an appeal before Hon'ble ITAT

SANJEEV GARG,KURUKSHETRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KURUKSHETRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 871/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 871/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sanjeev Garg, The Ito, House No. 297, Sector 13, Vs Kurukshetra. U.E., Kurukshetra. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afspg0180L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Navneet Singal, Ca & Shri Rittun Sahuwala, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Singal, CA and Shri Rittun Sahuwala, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 6.1 As far as challenging the re-opening of assessment is concerned, we do not find any merit in it because assessee did not file his return of income and AO has information that a cash deposit of more than Rs.20,45,000/- was made in the Saving Bank

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

ITA 992/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

condone the alleged delay and proceed to decide the Cross Objections on merit in both the assessment years. 7. The Revenue has taken four grounds of appeal in each ITA No.992 & 993/CHD/2024 & CO 46 & 45/CHD/2024 A.Y.2017-18 & 2016-17 7 assessment year. In brief, its grievance revolves around a single issue and the issues pleaded in rest of the grounds

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 339/CHANDI/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: \nSh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

condonation of delay.\n5.\nSince the issue involved in all the appeals are identical,\n(except in ITA No. 673/Chd/2021 for AY 2015-16) wherein, the\norder had been passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act by CIT Exemptions,\nChandigarh, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are\ndisposed off for the sake of brevity.\n6.\nAppeal of the Assessee

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 337/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: \nSh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

condonation of delay.\n5.\nSince the issue involved in all the appeals are identical,\n(except in ITA No. 673/Chd/2021 for AY 2015-16) wherein, the\norder had been passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act by CIT Exemptions,\nChandigarh, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are\ndisposed off for the sake of brevity.\n6.\nAppeal of the Assessee

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 63/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nSh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

condonation of delay.\n\n5.\nSince the issue involved in all the appeals are identical,\n(except in ITA No. 673/Chd/2021 for AY 2015-16) wherein, the\norder had been passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act by CIT Exemptions,\nChandigarh, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are\ndisposed off for the sake of brevity.\n\n6.\nAppeal

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

condonation of delay.\n\n5.\nSince the issue involved in all the appeals are identical,\n(except in ITA No. 673/Chd/2021 for AY 2015-16) wherein, the\norder had been passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act by CIT Exemptions,\nChandigarh, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are\ndisposed off for the sake of brevity.\n\n6.\nAppeal

EMMBROS AUTOCOMP LIMITED,BADDI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PARWANOO

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

ITA 1172/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1172/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Emmbros Autocomp The Acit, बनाम Limited, Village Katha, Circle, Baddi, Parwanoo Vs. Distt. Solan 173220 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaace3489Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Raman Tiwari, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemptions [‘(Cit(A)’]

For Appellant: Sh. Raman Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 801CSection 80I

deduction under section 80IC whereas the issue itself was debatable at the time of filing of return. Hence the penalty imposed on that addition may be deleted. 3. On the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of the law, the learned CIT (Appeals) grossly erred in not condoning the delay

THE CHIMNA CO-OP AGRI. SERVICE SOCIETY LTD.,PUNJAB vs. JAO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JAGRAON, PUNJAB

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

ITA 422/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 422/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 423/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Chimna Co-Op. Agri. Jao. बनाम Service Society Ltd., Income Tax Officer Vpo Chimna, Jagraon, Ward 1, Vs. Ludhiana. 141011 Jagraon "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaaat4706D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Kushal Chopra, C.A. (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09-2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri. Kushal Chopra, C.A. (virtual)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

condonation of delay in a judicious manner. 3. Notwithstanding the above grounds of appeal, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant is operating as a co- operating society in a very small village having population less than 2000 and it does not have a technical staff and was dependent upon his counsel for his Income Tax matters

THE CHIMNA AGRI. SER VICE SOCIETY LTD.,PUNJAB vs. JAO INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO, WARD-1, JAGRAON, PUNJAB

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

ITA 423/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 422/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 423/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Chimna Co-Op. Agri. Jao. बनाम Service Society Ltd., Income Tax Officer Vpo Chimna, Jagraon, Ward 1, Vs. Ludhiana. 141011 Jagraon "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaaat4706D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Kushal Chopra, C.A. (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09-2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri. Kushal Chopra, C.A. (virtual)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

condonation of delay in a judicious manner. 3. Notwithstanding the above grounds of appeal, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant is operating as a co- operating society in a very small village having population less than 2000 and it does not have a technical staff and was dependent upon his counsel for his Income Tax matters

THE TALWANDI RAI MULTIPURPOSE AGRICULTURE COPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,VPO. TALWANDI RAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, JAGRAON, JAGRAON

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

ITA 1024/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble Vice- & Sh. Krinwant Sahay, Hon’Ble(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 852 & 1024 /Chandi/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 249(3)Section 250Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)

condonation of delay in filing appeal as observed by I.T.A. Nos. 852 & 1024 /Chandi/2024 3 Assessment Year: 2017-18 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471) (SC). 3) That the appellant is a rural small co-operative society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities