← 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)

Jaimin Gautam Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT Circle 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7573/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 250Section 68

that there was gross negligence on part of the assessee and the explanation given would not constitute “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 253(5) of the Act. 12. We have heard both parties on this preliminary issue of condonation of delay. There was a delay of 583 days ... lack of knowledge about status of appeal etc. could not be treated as a “sufficient cause” in terms of provisions of section 253(5) of the Act for the inordinate delay of 583 days. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of decisions, namely

Razak Abdulkarim Mansuri, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7, Vapi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 352/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha&Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri P M JAGASETH, CAFor Respondent: Shri AJAY UKE, SR. DR
Section 143(2)Section 271ASection 69A

order on asessee, the explanation offered by the assessee is found to have a "sufficient cause" for delay in filing present appeal. Section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time if the appeal filed along with application for condonation ... cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the provision of section 253(5) of the Act. We take a judicious view and condone the delay in this appeal. At the same time, as agreed by both sides and also having

Nayana Jayesh Patel, Indore vs. Assessing Officer, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 475/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 250Section 50c

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. 4. The brief facts

Ravindra Awasthi, Indore vs. ITO 2(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose, subject

ITA 191/IND/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 250(6)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 Page 3 of 6 Ravindra Awasthi ITA No. 191/Ind/2025 - AY 2010-11 empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry ... 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

Amar Nath Singh, Ara vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 460/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: The Itat. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Given Explanation Which Is As Under:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(5)

most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to: Condone the delay of 7 days in filing the appeal under Section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; and pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper

Manohar Singh Thakur, S/O Shri Anar Singh Thakur, Village Banwari vs. Income Tax Officer, Sehore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 323/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2012-13 Manohar Singh Thakur, Ito S/O Shri Anar Singh Sehore बनाम/ Thakur, Village Banwari Vs. Kalan Tehsil-Ashta (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Agxpt9481F Assessee By Shri Soumya, Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026

Section 144Section 253(5)

view of same, 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 ... 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. 3. On merit of case

Kakinada Infrastructure Holdings Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 1053/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Respondent: MS Reema Yadav, Sr. AR
Section 270A

dispute that there has been a delay in filing the present appeals by 583 days. There is also no dispute that under section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause ... technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred. Therefore, in exercise of powers under section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay of 583 days in filing the present appeals as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause

Radhakishan, Khategaon, Dewas vs. ITO-2, Dewas

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 678/IND/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2010-11
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246A

A.Y.2010-11 To, The Hon'ble Members, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore COP cep Sub: Application for condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – A.Υ. 2010-11 - Reg. Hon'ble Sir, The Appellant respectfully submits the following: 1. The appellant

Kalpana Narware, Betul vs. Income Tax Officer, Betul

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 202/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

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

Section 144Section 253

admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. Similarly, the 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

Mamta Dholpure, Indore vs. ITO 3(3), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 712/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271

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. It further emerged

Shri Avinash Bansal, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 4(3), Indore

ITA 682/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

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

Section 147Section 270A

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

Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal, Barabanki vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range -5, Lucknow

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

ITA 130/LKW/2021[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 253(5)Section 68

outset, it is noted that the appeal is delayed by 66 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay under section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act wherein it has been stated that the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1 was received

Chintan Dwarkadas Chotai, Junagadh vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir 1(1), RKT, Rajkot

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

ITA 636/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

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

For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 80G

Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387, taking into account of provision of section 253(5), and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take judicious view and condoned the delay in this file. We further note that

M/S. Sai Builders and Developers, Vashi, Navi Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-27, Vashi, Navi Mumbai

ITA 4520/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethm/S Sai Builders & Developers. B12, Ashiana, Plot No.15, Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan/Gir No: Abbfs0092C (Appellant) Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-27. It-Office, Vashi Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai-400703. (Respondent) Appellant By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Shri Shashank Mehta Shri Vivek Perampurna, Cit-Dr 07.01.2026 28.01.2026 Order Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘Act') By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mumbai-27 Dated 16.03.2025 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Principal Cit, Mumbai-27 Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Holding That The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify, Amend Or Substitute All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal." 1

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 263

nature and was not due to any deliberate intention of the assessee cannot be a “sufficient cause” in terms of provisions of section 253(5) of the Act for the inordinate delay of 1114 days. The appellant had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Hardikkumar Maganbhai Thumar, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed for statical purpose

ITA 625/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 625/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Hardikkumar Maganbhai Thumar Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward Jetalsar, Jetalsar Post, Jetpur Rajkot- 1(1)(1),/Rkt. 360360.Gujarat It Office, New Aaykar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Rajkot. Gujarat 360360 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Axupt8837F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kishor Gheewala, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23 / 12 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 / 01 /2026

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Gheewala, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. SR. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 194HSection 250Section 40

have a "sufficient cause" for delay in filing present Hardikbhai Maganbhai Thumar appeal as narrated above in foregoing para. 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 ... each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in this appeal, At the same time

Vineetsingh Gulabsingh Rore, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 868/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 253(5)Section 263Section 69

Sunil Maloo & Co., Chartered Accountants, who specializes in Direct Tas Litigation matters. On his advice. I am filing the said appeal today under Section 253(5) of the Act. praying for the condonation of the delay. Regret for Delay: I express deep regret for the delay in filing this appeal

Gopal Krishna Karodi Sabbana, Dakshina Kannada vs. Dy./Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Mangalore

ITA 1508/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 271B

ITA Nos.1504 to 1508/Bang/2025 Sri Gopal Krishna Karodi Sabbana, Sullia IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A"BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE

Gopal Krishna Karodi Sabbana, Dakshina Kannada vs. Dy./Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

ITA 1507/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 253(5)Section 271B

ITA Nos.1504 to 1508/Bang/2025 Sri Gopal Krishna Karodi Sabbana, Sullia IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE

Gopal Krishna Karodi Sabbana, Dakshina Kannada vs. Dy./Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

ITA 1506/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 253(5)Section 271B

ITA Nos.1504 to 1508/Bang/2025 Sri Gopal Krishna Karodi Sabbana, Sullia IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE

Gopal Krishna Karodi Sabbana, Dakshina Kannada vs. Dy./Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

ITA 1505/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 253(5)Section 271B

ITA Nos.1504 to 1508/Bang/2025 Sri Gopal Krishna Karodi Sabbana, Sullia IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE