← 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)

New Era Public School, Rajgarh vs. Exemption Ward, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the Stay Application is dismissed as having become infructuous

ITA 128/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 144Section 246(1)Section 246(1)(a)Section 253(3)

short]. I.T.A. No.128/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2018-19 2 (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 and beyond

Venkatesh Srinivas, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Bengaluru

ITA 245/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharysri Venkatesh Srinivas No.75, 2Nd Floor, 8Th Cross Wilson Garden, Bangalore 560 027 ………. Appellant [Pan: Abcpv8163C]

For Appellant: Sri PranayFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54F

Tribunal. The date of order passed by the CIT(A) was on 20.03.2024. The appellant ought to have filed appeal under section 253(3) of the Act within 60 days i.e. on or before 20.05.2024. The present appeal is filed on 11.02.2025 and the reasons for delay in filing

Vipulkumar Parbhubhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 741/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.741/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Vipulkumar Parbhubhai Patel, Vs. Ito, 378/1/2, Nishar Faliya, Puna Gam, Nr. Ward – 2(3)(4), Police Chowki, Surat - 395010 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Coipp7919F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/12/2025

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(3)Section 69

above grounds of appeals.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is late by 132 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. In the condonation petition, the appellant submitted that

Vihan Vibhag Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd., Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(5), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 707/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.707/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Vihan Vibhag Credit Co-Operative Vs. Ito, Society Ltd., Ward – 2(2)(5), At & Po: Vihan, Tal – Kamrej, Surat Tapi – 394320, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabav5113F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

hearing of an appeal.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 212 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal of appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant

Toran Lal Verma, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 573/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.573/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Toran Lal Varma House No.39, Ward-3, Village: Kachandur, Post-Karanja, Bhilai-490 024 (C.G.) Pan: Akfpv6450J

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 253(3)

fair chances of substantial relief in further appeal. 9. That the order of id. C1T(A) is dated 30/03/2025. As per provisions of section 253(3) of the Act the appeal ought to have been filed within two months from the end of month in 3 Toran Lal Varma

Madhvi Ajitkumar Ranka, Na vs. Arivs.ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 124/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Madhvi Ajitkumar Ranka, Vs. Acit, 88, Sunder Nagar, Jamalpore, Navsari Circle, Navsari – 396445 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahfpr5791K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Darshit J. Naik, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 68

advised from time to time.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is late by 184 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee submitted

Jayganga Exim India Private Limited, Indore vs. DCIT4(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is not admitted

ITA 4406/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Respondent: None
Section 68Section 69C

period affidavit explaining the delay, an appeal filed beyond the period affidavit explaining the delay, an appeal filed beyond the period prescribed under section 253(3) can be entertained by the Tribunal? prescribed under section 253(3) can be entertained by the Tribunal? prescribed under section 253(3 ... such right may be exercised are and the conditions subject to which such right may be exercised are equally statutory. Section equally statutory. Section 253(3) mandates that an appeal shall be mandates that an appeal shall be filed within the prescribed period. Section filed within the prescribed period. Section

Suraiyya Begum, Lucknow vs. ITO-2(3), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 748/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 144Section 253(3)Section 68Section 69A

deserves to be set-aside being bad in law.” (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, duly supported by affidavit, for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal; pleading that

Arif Ahmad Siddiqui, Lucknow vs. ITO 5(1), Lucknow-New, Lucknow

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

ITA 289/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 253(3)Section 69A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. (A.1) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application, duly supported by affidavit, for condonation of delay in filing of I.T.A. No.289/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year

Jayesh Dolatbhai Patel, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical 8

ITA 287/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.287/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Jayesh Dolatbhai Patel, Vs. Ito, Shop No.1, Arihant Saroj, M.G. Ward – 2, Road, Old Navyug Store, Valsad Valsad - 396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apmpp3588D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Ms Jaishree Thakur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2025

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 253(3)

grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is late by 216 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee submitted

Meenu, Govindpur, Allahabad vs. Income Tax Officer CPC (NFAC, Delhi)

Appeal stands dismissed in- limine on the ground of limitation

ITA 135/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Meenu V. The Income Tax Officer Mig-23, Govindpur Cpc A-503, Satpushp Apartment Civil Lines, Allahabad Pan:Akfpm3770J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S. K. Yogeshwar, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.02.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 05.08.2017, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.8,30,470/-. The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bangalore, Vide Intimation Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), Dated 26.03.2019 Assessed The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.16,12,650/-.

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Yogeshwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

First Appellate Authority on 09.02.2023 and was uploaded on the portal of the Income Tax Department. In terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act, the appeal against this order was required to be filed within sixty days. However, the assessee, admittedly, filed the appeal after a delay ... days from the expiry of statutory period prescribed under section 253(3) of the Act. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is time barred and deserves to be dismissed in-limine, if not supported by sufficient reasons for the delay, in terms of section 253

Miraj Ahmad, Barabanki vs. Assessment, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 26/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 253(3)Section 69Section 69A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. (A.1) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application, duly supported by affidavit, for condonation of delay in filing of I.T.A. No.26/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year

Bhavin Maheshkumar Desai, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward 1, Navsari

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

ITA 384/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Bhavin Maheshkumar Desai, Vs. Ito, Sanjay Farm, Talav Chora, Dist – Ward – 1, Navsari, Chikhli - 396321 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajepd7118B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

assessment year (AY) 2011-12. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is late by 549 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee submitted that

Ramanand Maurya, Ichauli, Barabanki, Up vs. ITO-5(5) Barabanki-2, Barabanki Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 681/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 19Section 253(3)Section 69A

made on the basis of presumption and surmises only.” (A.1) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application, duly supported by affidavit, for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that

Vibha Singh, Basti vs. Income Tax Officer, Basti

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 666/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 19Section 253(3)Section 69A

made on the basis of presumption and surmises only.” (A.1) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application, duly supported by affidavit, for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that

Uma Dutt Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 655/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10Section 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, duly supported by affidavit, for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that

Shri Goverdhan Saraswati Vidhya Mandir, Dharampur vs. CIT Exemption, Lucknow

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

ITA 430/LKW/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Nov 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

Section 12ASection 253(3)Section 80G

I.T.A. No.430/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2024-25 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUBHASH

Rakesh Kumar Yati, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3), Lucknow

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

ITA 310/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. (A.1) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application, duly supported by affidavit, for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that

Chhedi Lal Gupta, Pratapgarh vs. The Income Tax Officer, Pratapgarh

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

ITA 144/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 253(3)Section 69A

Rs.10,63,000/- is liable to be deleted.” 2. This appeal has been filed by the assessee beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application dated 04/08/2025, duly supported by an affidavit, for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading

Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Bharuch

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

ITA 60/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.60/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta Vs. Ito, Prop. Of Aditya Infrastructure, Ward - 1(5), 139, Maher Nagar, Opp. Baps Bharuch Hospital, Adajan Gam Circle, Surat - 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adepm 4458 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

Section 194ASection 194CSection 2(24)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 68Section 69A

hearing of the appeal.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 81 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal of appeal before the Tribunal