← All Phrases

“Section 253(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 253Section 253(3)398 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 253(3) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 253(3)

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.

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.

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.

PCIT v. IL&FS Energy Development Company Ltd.
84 Taxmann.com 186 · 2017 · High Court
255
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not permissible where the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. A CBDT Circular cannot override the express provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D to mandate such a disallowance.

Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. v. CIT
253 ITR 749 · 2002 · High Court
181
citing judgments

For a limited company, expenses cannot be disallowed merely on the grounds of presumed personal use of assets by directors or by treating the expenditure as a non-business purpose. Percentage disallowances of expenses in such cases are not sustainable.

CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors.
153 ITR 596 · 1985 · High Court
171
citing judgments

Where a reasonable cause for delay in filing an appeal exists, the period of delay may not be a relevant factor for condonation. The court has condoned even substantial delays, such as nearly 21 years, based on the presence of a reasonable cause.

Judgments citing Section 253(3)

Jap Restaurant Private Limited, Anjuna vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 7/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Oct 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Prabhakar Anand [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 250Section 253(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Jap Restaurant Private Limited, Anjuna vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 6/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Oct 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Prabhakar Anand [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 250Section 253(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Jap Restaurant Private Limited, Anjuna vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 5/PAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Oct 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Prabhakar Anand [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 250Section 253(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Bhagat Singh Rawat, Lucknow vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru

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

ITA 911/LKW/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 253(3)

I.T.A. No.911/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2020-21 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE

Basant Lal Gupta, Sidhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Rewa

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 132/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

short]. (B) In the appeals vide ITA. Nos. 129 & 132/JAB/2024 filed by the assessee, filings are beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay in filing of these appeals, pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond

Basant Lal Gupta, Sidhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Rewa

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 131/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

short]. (B) In the appeals vide ITA. Nos. 129 & 132/JAB/2024 filed by the assessee, filings are beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay in filing of these appeals, pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond

Basant Lal Gupta, Sidhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Rewa

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 130/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

short]. (B) In the appeals vide ITA. Nos. 129 & 132/JAB/2024 filed by the assessee, filings are beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay in filing of these appeals, pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond

Basant Lal Gupta, Sidhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Rewa

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

ITA 129/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

short]. (B) In the appeals vide ITA. Nos. 129 & 132/JAB/2024 filed by the assessee, filings are beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay in filing of these appeals, pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond

Puneet Katiyar, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3)(5), Kanpur

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

ITA 1007/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. (B) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that

Basti Sahkari Kraya Center Vikray Samiti Limited, Basti vs. ITO, Basti

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

ITA 539/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2015-16 Basti Sahkari Kraya Center V. Income Tax Officer Vikray Samiti Limited National Faceless Raja Bazar, Purani Basti, Basti- Assessment, New Delhi- 272002, Uttar Pradesh, India. 110001. Tan/Pan: Aacab0882G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit-Dr O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 69A

order dated 14.05.2024, pertaining to the A.Y. 2015-16. (B) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). The assessee has submitted application, duly supported by an affidavit, for condonation of delay in filing

Mvr Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 1254/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Filed Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavits Explaining The Reasons Contending, Inter Alia, That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Period Of Limitation Due To Miscommunication & Misguidance With The Appointed Learned Counsel Regarding The Case Proceedings To The Assessee. Further, The Appellant, Relied Entirely On The Learned Counsel & The Company'S Internal Accounting Staff For Updates & Developments, Was Under The Bona Fide Impression That The Proceedings Were Being Diligently Pursued & Attended. In Addition To That, The Part Time Accountant, Mr. Pedditi Gopal Reddy Who Was Managing The Accounts Of The Appellant'S Company & Dealt With Appointed Counsel Unfortunately Fell Gravely Ill During The Covid-19 Pandemic Period & Passed Away Which Led To A Breakdown In The Flow Of Communication Between The Assessee & Their Legal Representative. The Assessee Only

For Appellant: Srinavya Adabala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR
Section 253(3)

submitted that the assessee was prevented by a ‘reasonable and sufficient cause’ in filing the appeal within stipulated time as laid down under section 253(3) 5 ITA.No.1253/Hyd./2025 of the IT Act, 1961 and the delay in filing the appeal of 2345 days was beyond the control

Mvr Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-16(4), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 1253/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Filed Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavits Explaining The Reasons Contending, Inter Alia, That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Period Of Limitation Due To Miscommunication & Misguidance With The Appointed Learned Counsel Regarding The Case Proceedings To The Assessee. Further, The Appellant, Relied Entirely On The Learned Counsel & The Company'S Internal Accounting Staff For Updates & Developments, Was Under The Bona Fide Impression That The Proceedings Were Being Diligently Pursued & Attended. In Addition To That, The Part Time Accountant, Mr. Pedditi Gopal Reddy Who Was Managing The Accounts Of The Appellant'S Company & Dealt With Appointed Counsel Unfortunately Fell Gravely Ill During The Covid-19 Pandemic Period & Passed Away Which Led To A Breakdown In The Flow Of Communication Between The Assessee & Their Legal Representative. The Assessee Only

For Appellant: Srinavya Adabala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR
Section 253(3)

submitted that the assessee was prevented by a ‘reasonable and sufficient cause’ in filing the appeal within stipulated time as laid down under section 253(3) 5 ITA.No.1253/Hyd./2025 of the IT Act, 1961 and the delay in filing the appeal of 2345 days was beyond the control

Balraj Singh, Shahjahanpur vs. ITO-I(5), Shahjahanpur

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

ITA 857/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(3)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. (B) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that

Geeta Waman Deshmukh, Nallasopara vs. ITO, Ward 4(4) Thane, Ashar It Park

ITA 8552/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Us Submitted That The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Be Condoned & In This Regard Reliance Was Placed Upon The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee Along With Assessment Year 2012-2013 Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Dnyanesh PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)

Income-tax Act, 1961 was passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), on 04.12.2024. That as per the provisions of section 253(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the appeal was required to be filed before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within 28th February

Krishna Kumar Gupta, Balaghat vs. Income Tax Officer, Balaghat

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

ITA 73/JAB/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 253(3)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. (B) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional

Vicky Navani, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jabalpur, Ward ))

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

ITA 124/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 253(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 275Section 44A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. (B) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading

Chittibabu Ghanta, Panaji, Goa vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 281/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Chittibabu Ghanta, Panaji, Goa vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 280/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Chittibabu Ghanta, Goa vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 279/PAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Chittibabu Ghanta, Goa vs. ACIT Central Circle, Panaji, Goa

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 278/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI