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.

65 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 65clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai432Mumbai416Delhi363Kolkata230Bangalore185Ahmedabad159Hyderabad155Karnataka133Jaipur110Chandigarh103Pune65Visakhapatnam56Nagpur50Amritsar47Indore42Calcutta38Lucknow37Surat37Rajkot21Cochin16Patna15Cuttack15Telangana15Agra14SC14Raipur11Guwahati10Dehradun7Varanasi7Allahabad6Jodhpur4Jabalpur3Orissa3Ranchi2Rajasthan2DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 12A56Addition to Income54Section 14844Section 14740Section 143(3)31Section 1130Section 10(20)24Cash Deposit24Section 250

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

65,425/-. 14. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) considering the submission of the assessee, the facts of the case, findings of the AO in the assessment order, provision of the section and CBDT's Instruction no 1/1148, dated February 9, 1978, held that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961. While doing

Showing 1–20 of 65 · Page 1 of 4

23
Section 142(1)18
Condonation of Delay15
Penalty13

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

65,425/-. 14. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) considering the submission of the assessee, the facts of the case, findings of the AO in the assessment order, provision of the section and CBDT's Instruction no 1/1148, dated February 9, 1978, held that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961. While doing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

65,425/-. 14. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) considering the submission of the assessee, the facts of the case, findings of the AO in the assessment order, provision of the section and CBDT's Instruction no 1/1148, dated February 9, 1978, held that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961. While doing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

65,425/-. 14. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) considering the submission of the assessee, the facts of the case, findings of the AO in the assessment order, provision of the section and CBDT's Instruction no 1/1148, dated February 9, 1978, held that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961. While doing

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

65,425/-. 14. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) considering the submission of the assessee, the facts of the case, findings of the AO in the assessment order, provision of the section and CBDT's Instruction no 1/1148, dated February 9, 1978, held that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961. While doing

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

65,425/-. 14. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) considering the submission of the assessee, the facts of the case, findings of the AO in the assessment order, provision of the section and CBDT's Instruction no 1/1148, dated February 9, 1978, held that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961. While doing

NILESH HIMMATRAO PATIL,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant trust stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1586/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1586/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Nilesh Himmatrao Patil, Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), 301, Ujjwal Liberty, Pune Lane No.30/31, Ganesh Nagar, Dhayari B.O., Pune 411 041 Maharashtra Pan : Ardpp6570E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

condone the delay of 65 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual, no regular return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 under the provisions of section

FAKRODDIN DAWAL PATEL,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LATUR

In the result both appeals allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1475/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1475/Pun/2024&1476/Pun/2024 धििाारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16& 2016-17 Fakroddin Dawal Patel, 9, D, Income Tax Officer, Latur Market Yard, Latur, Maharashtra-413512 Vs Pan No. Aqapp3436F Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue

Section 69A

section 148. It was not complied. The AO then issued various notices. According to the AO assessee had not submitted any submission hence AO made addition of Rs. 65,47,181/- u/s 69A of the Act in the Ex-party assessment order. 4.2) The Assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) which was delayed by 186 days. The Assessee gave

FAKRODDIN DAWAL PATEL,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LATUR

In the result both appeals allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1476/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1475/Pun/2024&1476/Pun/2024 धििाारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16& 2016-17 Fakroddin Dawal Patel, 9, D, Income Tax Officer, Latur Market Yard, Latur, Maharashtra-413512 Vs Pan No. Aqapp3436F Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue

Section 69A

section 148. It was not complied. The AO then issued various notices. According to the AO assessee had not submitted any submission hence AO made addition of Rs. 65,47,181/- u/s 69A of the Act in the Ex-party assessment order. 4.2) The Assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) which was delayed by 186 days. The Assessee gave

UNIVERSAL REALTY,PUNE, INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), SWARGATE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 811/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.811/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 147Section 250Section 264

delay be condoned, and the Appeal should be taken up for hearing. 6) The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify and or delete any or all of the grounds of appeal mentioned herein above.” 7 Universal Reality 10. From the above grounds of appeal, it is manifest that the only grievance of the assessee is that ld.CIT

MANJU MADHUSUDAN DHOOT, L/H OF LATE MADHUSUDAN DHOOT,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1919/PUN/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1919 & 1920/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit
Section 144Section 250

condone the delay in filing the instant appeals and proceed for adjudication on merits. 6. I first take up the appeal for A.Y. 2007-08. Grounds of appeal raised by assessee in ITA No.1919/PUN/2024 read as under: “The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other - On facts and in law, 1] The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding

MANJU MADHUSUDAN DHOOT L/H OF LATE MADHUSUDAN DHOOT,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1920/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1919 & 1920/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit
Section 144Section 250

condone the delay in filing the instant appeals and proceed for adjudication on merits. 6. I first take up the appeal for A.Y. 2007-08. Grounds of appeal raised by assessee in ITA No.1919/PUN/2024 read as under: “The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other - On facts and in law, 1] The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD (PUNE MUMBAI REALTY P LTD MERGED WITH RIVER VIEW PROPERTIES PVT. LTD MERGED WITH KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD), ,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1323/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Pune28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 357/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Kumar Urban Development Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., (Pune Mumbai Reality Private Limited Merged With River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. & River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.) 10Th Floor, Kumar Business Center, Cts No.29, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411001. Pan : Aadcp8622M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri B. Koteswararao Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 & 3, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.05.2017 & 08.11.2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.1323/Pun/2018 For A.Y. 2012-13 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri B. Koteswararao
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It held that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned, but that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him; and if the explanation does

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD (PUNE MUMBAI REALTY P LTD MERGED WITH RIVER VIEW PROPERTIES PVT.LTD. MERGED WITH KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 357/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Pune28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 357/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Kumar Urban Development Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., (Pune Mumbai Reality Private Limited Merged With River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. & River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.) 10Th Floor, Kumar Business Center, Cts No.29, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411001. Pan : Aadcp8622M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri B. Koteswararao Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 & 3, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.05.2017 & 08.11.2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.1323/Pun/2018 For A.Y. 2012-13 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri B. Koteswararao
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It held that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned, but that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him; and if the explanation does

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD, KOLHAPUR , KOLHAPUR vs. THE NEW MIRAJ EDUCATION SOCIETY, MIRAJ, DIST. SANGLI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 928/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Udaya Bhaskar Jakke, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

condoned. Ground No.1 & 2: Brief facts of the case are as under, For the year under consideration ie. AY 2021-22, it filed its Income Tax return on 30.12.2021, vide Ack No. 653076820301221 declaring total income of Rs. 36,460. The due date for filing of the Income, Tax return was 15.02.2022. In the ITR filed, the assessee trust

KOLHAPUR SAHAKARI MAJUR AND HAMAL SANSTHA MARYADIT,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1),, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 1138/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1138/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kolhapur Sahakari Majur Vs. Ito, Ward- 2(1) & Hamal Sanstha Kolhapur. Maryadit, Masjid Complex, 2Nd Floor, Office No.14, Hamal Bhavan, 439-E Ward, Station Road, Shahupuri, Kolhapur- 416001. Pan : Aaaap0326R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Kolhapur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 25.04.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law & By Order Of The Hon'Ble Tribunal 'A' Bench Pune In Ita No. 486/Pun/2012 For A. Y. 2012-13 Which Decision Was Rendered In Favour Of The Assessee Now The Issue Is A 'Covered' In Favour Of The Assessee. Following The Hon'Ble Tribunal Order (Supra) The Deduction Of 82,78,245/- Be Allowed To The Appellant.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)

65,301/- after claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolhapur (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 21.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs.91,89,670/-. While

LEKHAKOSH KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PR. CIT, PUNE-4, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 575/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 263

condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the same for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT erred in law and on facts in initiating the proceedings u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that the assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial

PANKAJ CHANDRAKANT LADKAT,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-14(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1523/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1523/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Vs Ito, Ward-14(3), Pankaj Chandrakant Ladkat, Pune S No 211, Rupi Nagar, Bhekrainagar, Phursungi, S.O Fursungi, Pune- 412308 Maharashtra Pan-Agwpl9120G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

65,72,600/- u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 433 days. No proper reason for condonation of delay was filed before Ld. CIT(A) even before us. Prayer has been made for condoning the delay as the assessee was prevented for sufficient cause. Admittedly assessee

BHARAT YASHWANT GAWAS,SINDHUDURG vs. ITO, WARD 1, KUDAL, KUDAL

Accordingly grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1261/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shir Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1261/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bharat Yashwant Gawas, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Gavthanwadi Zolambe, Ward-1, Kudal. Doodamarg, Sindhudurg, - 416510. Maharashtra. Pan: Aukpg5256A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Umesh Kumar Madhukar Mali – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/09/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 28.11.2023 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Bharat Yashwant Gawas [A]

Section 148Section 250Section 69A

section 250 of the Income tax Act, dated 28.11.2023 for the A.Y.2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : Bharat Yashwant Gawas [A] “1) Ground No.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld.AO erred in making addition of Rs.29,45,400/- as cash deposit in The Laxmi Co-operative bank Limited, Solapur

INDRAJIT RAMCHANDRA JAGTAP,MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO TDS WARD KOLHAPUR, ITO TDS WARD KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 570/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist
Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

section 201, was passed on 31-03-2023 The appeal before CIT(A), NFAC, should have been filed by 30-04- 2023. Whereas the appeal was actually filed on 04-12-2024. As such, there was a delay of 583 days 3. That the order dated 31-03-2023 was issued and served upon on the email ID: rksavant23@gmail.com without