← 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)

Gopal Bhaskar Chaudhari, Valsad vs. ITO Ward 3, Vapi

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

ITA 645/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: None for the assesseeFor Respondent: Mr. J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DR
Section 253(3)Section 5

interested in prosecuting the appeal, hence same was heard exparte qua the assessee after hearing arguments of ld Departmental Representative. 5. Under Section 253(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, an appeal before this Tribunal is required to be filed within sixty days from the date of communication ... assessee are dismissed as not admitted, being time-barred under the provisions of ITA Nos. 645 & 646/SRT/2025 5 Gopal Bhaskar Chaudhari Section 253(3) of the Income-tax Act read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08/10/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN

Sahebsingh Rawat, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward 8, Vapi

In the result, the delay in filing the appeal before this

ITA 392/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Suresh K Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DR
Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

whereas the present appeal before the Tribunal has been filed on 02.04.2025. The appeal, as per the statutory period of limitation prescribed under section 253(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), ought to have been filed on or before 02.03.2025. There is, therefore, a delay of approximately

Gyan Vikas Samiti, Ambedkar Nagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ambedkar Nagar

In the result, the impugned orders of the Ld

ITA 8/ALLD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: (Application)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 249(4)Section 253(3)

appeal in future in accordance with the law.” (A.2) These appeals have been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay, supported by affidavit. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express

Gyan Vikas Samiti, Ambedkar Nagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ambedkar Nagar

In the result, the impugned orders of the Ld

ITA 7/ALLD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: (Application)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 249(4)Section 253(3)

appeal in future in accordance with the law.” (A.2) These appeals have been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay, supported by affidavit. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express

Baleshwar Nath Educational Society, Bhadohi vs. Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

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

ITA 63/ALLD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

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

short]. I.T.A. No.63/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2021-22 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

Shervani Sugar Syndicate Limited, Ghaziabad vs. Dc/ACIT-2, Allahabad

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

ITA 138/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. National Faceless Limited Assessment Centre 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad- Delhi. 201001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. Dc/Acit-2, Allahabad Limited Office Of The Assistant C/O 17, Navyug Market, Commissioner Of Income Ghaziabad-201001. Tax, Allahabad, Allahabad-211001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Madhav Kapur Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Madhav KapurFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 253(3)

grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 2. These appeals have been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay, supported by affidavit. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express

Shervani Sugar Syndicate Limited, C/O B. K. Kapur Co vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 137/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. National Faceless Limited Assessment Centre 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad- Delhi. 201001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. Dc/Acit-2, Allahabad Limited Office Of The Assistant C/O 17, Navyug Market, Commissioner Of Income Ghaziabad-201001. Tax, Allahabad, Allahabad-211001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Madhav Kapur Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Madhav KapurFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 253(3)

grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 2. These appeals have been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay, supported by affidavit. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express

Aims Max Gardenia Developers Private Limited, Noida vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3431/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 253(3)

appeal against order dated 28.03.2024 was to be filed with Hon'ble ITAT within sixty days of service of respective order: as per section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, it is very humbly submitted that accountant of the appellant company who was responsible

Aims Max Gardenia Developers Pvt Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3430/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 253(3)

appeal against order dated 28.03.2024 was to be filed with Hon'ble ITAT within sixty days of service of respective order: as per section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, it is very humbly submitted that accountant of the appellant company who was responsible

Aims Max Gardenia Developers Private Limited, Noida vs. ACIT< Central Circle-16, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3429/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 253(3)

appeal against order dated 28.03.2024 was to be filed with Hon'ble ITAT within sixty days of service of respective order: as per section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, it is very humbly submitted that accountant of the appellant company who was responsible

Veena Singh, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Gwalior

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 324/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(3)Section 68

Registry. However, in Form No. 36, assessee has mentioned the date of service of the impugned order as 19.06.2025, hence, in view of section 253(3) of the Act, the appeal appears to be belated by a single day, which stands condoned in the interest of justice. 3. Brief facts

Natesan Gopi, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1124/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1124/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

representation by assessee. Considering the above facts, and the fact that the appeal has been filed beyond the date prescribed in section 253(3) of the Act with delay of 539 days and there is no condonation petition, explaining the cause of delay as required u/s 253

Dwarkesh & Co., Surat vs. ITO, Ward- 2(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 61/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.61/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Dwarkesh & Co. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), बनाम/ 19, Radheyshyam Society, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Surat-395 Vs. Opp. Gopinath Complex, 001 Mota Varachha, Surat- 394 101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagfd 7120 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 145(1)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

deem it proper.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 308 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 before the Tribunal. The assessee submitted that during

Madhuri Agarwal, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer- 3(2), Lucknow

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

ITA 691/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253(3)

I.T.A. No.691/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUBHASH

Kanhaiya Lal Khetan, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi/ ITO-3(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 227/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

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

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

DCIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Johnson & Johnson Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is allowed

ITA 4375/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Johnson & Johnson Income-Tax, Central Circle – Private Limited Vs. 3(4), Mumbai 501, Arena Space Off Jvlr, Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Jogeshwari East, S.O. Mumbai Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 40020 400060 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacj0866E (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Nikhil Tiwari/Shri Pranay Gandhi /Revenue By: Shri Vivek Perampurna Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 16.04.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2013-14 & Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection.

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil Tiwari/Shri PranayFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

Erred in filing the captioned appeal on 2 July 2025 which is beyond the time allowed to file an appeal in terms of section 253(3) of the Act. Issues in appeal are settled and accepted by the Department: 3. Failed to appreciate that the Co-ordinate Bench

Shri Bhimabhai Karshanbhai Gareja, Fulrama, Tal. Magrol, Dist. Junagadh vs. The ACIT Circle1, Junagadh

In the result, both these appeals (ITA 415 & 416/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017-18) of

ITA 416/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Maheta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 253(3)

appeal before your honour. Hence, this application for the condonation of delay. 2. The period of limitation for filing the appeal under section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is sixty days of the date of service of the notice of demand. 3. In the present case order ... before this Hon'ble ITAT. Hence, this application for the condonation of delay. 2. The period of limitation for filing the appeal under section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is sixty days of the date of service of the notice of demand. 3. In the present case

Shri Dayabhai Karshanbhai Gareja, Mangrol, District Junagadh vs. The ACIT Circle1, Junagadh

In the result, both these appeals (ITA 415 & 416/Rjt/2025 for AY 2017-18) of

ITA 415/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Maheta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 253(3)

appeal before your honour. Hence, this application for the condonation of delay. 2. The period of limitation for filing the appeal under section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is sixty days of the date of service of the notice of demand. 3. In the present case order ... before this Hon'ble ITAT. Hence, this application for the condonation of delay. 2. The period of limitation for filing the appeal under section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is sixty days of the date of service of the notice of demand. 3. In the present case

Baldevbhai Vithhakbhai Patel, Pardi vs. ITO, Ward 1, Vapi

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

ITA 582/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat12 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Am. Smatpt Sitet Bta No.582/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 68

withdraw any grounds of appeal.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is late by 20 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. It has been stated that

Lalji Yadav, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer- 6(2), Lucknow

ITA 804/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Income Tax Officer-6(2)
Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

NFAC), Delhi dated 14.10.2024 for the assessment year 2015-16. The appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The appellant assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit