← All Phrases

“Section 253(5)”

Section References (mined)Section 253Section 253(5)443 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 253(5) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 253(5)

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.

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.

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.

Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Ms Katiji and Others
167 ITR 5 · 1987 · Supreme Court
164
citing judgments

The principle of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay in filing appeals requires a liberal interpretation to ensure substantial justice, but delay will not be condoned if sufficient cause is not satisfactorily explained by the appellant.

People Education and Economic Development Society (PEEDS) v. ITO
100 ITD 87 · 2006 · ITAT
121
citing judgments

When substantial justice and procedural technicalities are in conflict, especially in cases involving non-deliberate delay, the cause of substantial justice must be prioritized. The opposing party cannot claim a vested right to benefit from injustice due to such delays.

Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd.
104 ITD 149 · 2007 · ITAT
118
citing judgments

A delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned if it is attributable to the assessee's negligence or inaction, such as misplacing and forgetting the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The provisions relating to limitation apply with rigour, and a lack of due care and attention is not a sufficient reason for condonation.

Judgments citing Section 253(5)

Vijay Kothari, Indore vs. DCIT (Central)-1, Indore

ITA 267/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 250

assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal as explained by Ld. AR. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal ... approach. Page 7 of 25 Vijay Kothari ITA No.267/Ind/2024 A.Y.:2015-16 Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The background

Jagdishchandra Shantilal Chhatralia, Gujarat vs. Assesing Oficer, Rajkot

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

ITA 623/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 623/Rjt/2025

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

advance by the AR the assesse. We found that there is a "sufficient cause" for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a "sufficient cause" for not presenting

Viren Vallabhdas Dhakan, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 34/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115bSection 143(3)Section 234aSection 250Section 271ASection 271aSection 68

submission advance by the AR the assessee is found to have a "sufficient cause" for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a "sufficient cause" for not presenting

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)

आयकर अपील"य "याया"धकरण म", हैदराबाद ‘बी’ ब"च, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench

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)

आयकर अपील"य "याया"धकरण म", हैदराबाद ‘बी’ ब"च, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench

Kusum George Jacob, Bhopal vs. ITO - 2(1) Bhopal, Aaykar Bhawan, Hoshangabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 657/IND/2025[2012 -2013]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 147Section 250Section 253Section 253(5)

neither deliberate nor intentional but has occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances constituting “sufficient , cause” Within the 3a meaning of Section 253(5) of the Act. 9: That’ fate Shri George Jacob passed away on 27.12.2018. Thereafter, his daughter, Ms. Monica Jacob, had been attending to and managing ... advanced age and vulnerability of the Appellant. 11. That, it is a settled principle of law that the expression “sufficient cause” under Section 253(5) of the Act is to be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that when substantial

Shahanshah Dal Mill, Bhopal vs. ITO-5(3), Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 335/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 40A(2)(b)

fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting ... substantial justice’ must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 5. On merit

Narendra Kumar Mishra, Bhopal vs. ITO-3(1), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 233/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

For Appellant: Narendra Kumar Mishra, Bhopal
Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting ... substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The background facts

Madhya Pradesh Industrial Foundation, Pologround, Industrial State vs. Exemption Ward Indore, Main Building, Indore

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

ITA 148/IND/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 12ASection 253(5)Section 80G

fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting ... substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. We have heard

Madhya Pradesh Industrial Foundation, Pologround, Industrial State vs. Exemption Ward Indore, Main Building, Indore

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

ITA 147/IND/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 12ASection 253(5)Section 80G

fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting ... substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. We have heard

Kapil Khandelwal, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 335/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Kapil Khandelwal, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of 56, Moar Kothi, Gangapur, Bareilly Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly Pan: Aiypk4908M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Penalty Levied Upon The Assessee Under Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao On 17.03.2022 & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because Requisite Satisfaction For Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) If The Income Tax Act 1961 Was Not Recorded In The Regular Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2017 Passed A/S 100%, Therefore, Penalty Proceedings Got Wholly Vitiated & Consequently, The Id. "Cit(A)" Ought To Have Quashed The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022, Being Illegal, Bad-In-Law & Without Jurisdiction 2. Because The Show Cause Notice For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Did Not Specify Under Which Limb Penalty Was Sought To Be Imposed I.E.. Whether On Account Of Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Consequently, The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022 Passed By Faceless Assessing Officer Deserved To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

delayed by 183 days. Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the ld. AR) drew our attention to a condonation application under section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act by the assessee and an affidavit in which it was submitted that the order under section 250 dated

Mukesh Vasantkumar Chandan, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3003/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 250

denial of the statutory right of appeal without adjudication on merits. 10. It is well settled that the expression “sufficient cause” appearing in section 253(5) of the Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition

Rekha Khandelwal, Rajgarh vs. ITO Ward Rajgarh, Rajgarh

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 649/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Rekha Khandelwal, Income-Tax Officer, Ward No.2, Near Chote Ward Rajgarh Hanuman Mandir, बनाम/ Rajgarh Bus Stand Vs. S.O. Rajgarh, (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eljpk1548B Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(5)Section 68

fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting ... substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The background facts

Akhilesh Parmar, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 636/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting ... substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing

Anil Turakhia, Indore vs. ITO-5(1), Indore

ITA 596/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshianil Turakhia

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Anil Turakhia, Indore vs. ITO-5(1), Indore

ITA 595/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshianil Turakhia, 19 Rani Sati Colony, Y.N. Road, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Anil Turakhia, Indore vs. ITO-5(1), Indore

ITA 594/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshianil Turakhia

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Anil Turakhia, Indore vs. ITO-5(1), Indore

ITA 593/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshianil Turakhia

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Kamlesh Motwani, Bhopal vs. DCIT-2(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 518/IND/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 253(5)

material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within ... substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing

Rajesh Gourishankar, Dewas vs. Officer, Dewas

ITA 377/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi**

Section 144Section 253(5)

fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a "sufficient cause" for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a "sufficient cause" for not presenting ... substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing