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.

19 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 253(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Indore164Jaipur109Mumbai109Kolkata107Lucknow101Ahmedabad101Surat89Chennai85Bangalore81Delhi72Chandigarh48Panaji39Pune37Rajkot28Jabalpur21Nagpur21Patna21Allahabad21Hyderabad20Cuttack19Visakhapatnam13Raipur12Varanasi11Ranchi9Guwahati8Jodhpur4SC4Cochin3Agra1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 14721Penalty11Section 14810Reassessment10Section 270A8Section 272A(1)(d)8Section 271D8Disallowance8Limitation/Time-bar

SULTAN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,,SUNDARPADA, BHUBANESWAR vs. PR. CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 29/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack26 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Ramit Kocharassessment Year : 2015-16 Sultan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Sultan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 At:Plot No.161, Azad Nagar, At:Plot No.161, Azad Nagar, Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar. Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aascs 1016 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ray, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

D E R Per George Mathan, JM George Mathan, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/s.263 of the Act passed by the Act passed by the ld Pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar-1 dated

7
Section 2636
Condonation of Delay5
Section 143(1)4

STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARAD 5(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and stay petition stands dismissed

ITA 301/CTK/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwals.P.No.11/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year :2017-18 State Pollution Control Board State Pollution Control Board, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2), Plot No.A-118, Paribesh Bhawan, 118, Paribesh Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Nilakantha Nagar, Agar, Nayapali, Nayapali, Unit-Vii, Bhubaneswar Neswar Pan/Gir No.Aaals 2490 J Aaals 2490 J (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/10/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, CA walla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT
Section 4

D' in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education(supra). In these circumstances, we hold that the assessee is a "State" under the Article 289 of the Constitution of India and is entitled for immunity from taxation under the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the case of the assessee Board, it is an authority within the territory

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASST,CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , AAYAKAR BHAWAN

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant
Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

1)(d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant
Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

1)(d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

SAHOO DIOSTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant
Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

1)(d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

SAHOO DISTRIBNUTORS (P) LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1/CTK/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant
Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

1)(d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant
Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

1)(d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant
Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

1)(d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant
Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

1)(d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASST.CIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,SHELTER SQUARE,

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra/Himansu Jena/Narahari SwainFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohant
Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271DSection 272A(1)(d)

1)(d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 10. Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal

DREAM INDIA TRANSFORMATION,NABARANGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, BERHAMPUR

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

ITA 341/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 250Section 253

D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. In this case, there is a delay of 308 days has been reported by the ITAT Registry, for which a petition has been filed as under: “For Delay of 521 Days in Filing Appeal under Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 1. That the present Appeal is being preferred

TAPAN KUMAR SETHY,CUTTACK vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), CUTTACK

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

ITA 227/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Tapan Kumar Sethy Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Purighat Road, Telenga Bazar , Cuttack Cuttack- 753009 Pan/Gir No. Blzps 1048 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhanshu Kr Das, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02 /07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 15/06/2022 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Cuttack/10917/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 952 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Dated 7.4.2025 Supported With Affidavit Stating The Reasons That Due To Serious Illness Of The Assessee’S Mother & Change Of P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhanshu Kr Das, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 253(3)

D E R Per Bench The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi dated 15/06/2022 in Appeal No.CIT(A), Cuttack/10917/2019-20 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The appeal is time barred by 952 days. The assessee has filed

SUJATA NAYAK,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, RAYAGADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 151/CTK/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Smt.Sujata Sujata Nayak Nayak, W/O. Vs. Ito, Ito, Rayagada Rayagada Ward, Ward, Shri Lokanath Nayak, Omp Shri Lokanath Nayak, Omp Rayagada Road, Indira Nagar, 6Th Lane, Road, Indira Nagar, 6 Po;Dist: Rayagada Po;Dist: Rayagada Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Addpn 2024 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Archita Nayak, Ar : Ms Archita Nayak, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01 /01/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Berhampur, In Appeal No.0055/13 , Berhampur, In Appeal No.0055/13-14 Dated Dated 31.7.2014 For The Assessment Year Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. Ms Archita Nayak, Ms Archita Nayak, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Ms Archita Nayak, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 143(3)

253 of income Tax Act. one of the considerations for this decision : period of delay [perfect circle India Ltd' v. ACIT (2020) 120 taxmann.com 262 (Bom) following cenzure industries Ltd' v. rro (Notice of Motion No.492 and 493 of 2015 dt.15.1.2016 (Bom). The fact about the delay period in the present case is more than 7 years and 9 months

MR. NARENDRA KUMA RBAL,KEONJHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KEONJHAR WARD, KEONJHAR

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

ITA 178/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack28 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

1. That the First Appeal order passed by the Id. CIT(A) was received on 31.03.2023 and according to the statute the Second Appeal should have be filed within 60 days from the date of the order received that is on or before 30.05.2023, but the same is filed on 10.03.2025. Therefore, the delay made of about 649 days

BHAIRABI CLUB AOP,KURUMPADA,HADAPADA,KHORDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 186/CTK/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2016-17 Bhairabi Club, Kurumpada, Bhairabi Club, Kurumpada, Vs. Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi Cit (A), Nfac, Delhi Po: Hadapada, Dist: Khurda Po: Hadapada, Dist: Khurda Pan/Gir No. No.Aaaab 3606 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Adv J.M.Pattnaik, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/8 8/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/8 /8/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 143(1)Section 154

D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 14.6.2023 in Appeal

S.B. COMBINE,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 41/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

D E R Per Bench The present appeals are directed at the instance of assessee against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi all dated 30/11/2024 in Appeal Nos. NFAC/2014-15/10191405, NFAC/2014- 15/10191407, NFAC/2014-15/10191481 passed for Assessment Year 2015- P a g e 1 | 4 ITA No.41/CTK/2025 Assessment Year

S.B. COMBINE,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 42/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Ku. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

D E R Per Bench The present appeals are directed at the instance of assessee against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi all dated 30/11/2024 in Appeal Nos. NFAC/2014-15/10191405, NFAC/2014- 15/10191407, NFAC/2014-15/10191481 passed for Assessment Year 2015- P a g e 1 | 4 ITA No.41/CTK/2025 Assessment Year

SAHOO DISTRIBUTEERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

ITA 63/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 270

D E R Per Bench The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhubaneswar-2, dated 30/11/2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10524/2016-17 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18, confirming the penalty levied u/s.270 of the Act on the ground of limitation. 2. It was submitted

COMMISSIONER, CUTTACK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,CUTTACK vs. ITO(TDS), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.83/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Commissioner, Vs Ito (Tds), Cuttack Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Choudhury Bazar, Dist: Cuttack Tan No. :Bbnc 00195 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & Sanjeev Swain, Advs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 31.10.2019, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0398/2015- 16 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 25 Days For Which The Assessee Has Filed Necessary Application For Condonation Of Delay & The Affidavit. The Reason For Delay Is Mentioned To Be On Account Of Urinary Infection & High Blood Pressure & The Consequential Medical Treatment. The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee Has Not Been Controverted By The Revenue. Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Disposed Off On Merits. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Issue In The Appeal Was Against Holding The Assessee As An Assessee In Default For Non-Deduction

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra & Sanjeev Swain, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Cuttack, dated 31.10.2019, passed in I.T.Appeal No.0398/2015- 16 for the assessment year 2014-2015. 2. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 25 days for which the assessee has filed necessary application for condonation of delay