← All Phrases

“delay in filing appeal”

AppealsSection 249Section 2491,894 judgments

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

Leading authorities on delay in filing appeal

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.

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.
2 SCC 107 · 1987 · Supreme Court
451
citing judgments

Courts must adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, preferring to decide cases on their merits rather than allowing technicalities of limitation to scuttle justice. This principle applies to ensure the substantive rights of parties are not defeated by minor delays.

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.

Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT
280 ITR 357 · 2006 · High Court
182
citing judgments

The expression "sufficient cause" for condoning delay in filing appeals must receive a liberal and purposive construction. This approach aims to advance substantial justice, which is of paramount importance.

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.

Judgments citing delay in filing appeal

Pradeep Sharma L/H of Smt Vimla Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2)(5), Ghaziabad

ITA 1916/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Pradeep Sharma, Vs Ito, L/H Of Smt. Vimla Sharma, Ward-2(2)(5), R-9, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad. Pratap Vihar, Sector 12, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201 001. Pan: Aycps2845R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144

order dated 05.07.2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC. 2. At the outset the ld. Counsel has mentioned about delay in filing appeal. It was submitted that assessee Vimala Sharma had dies and the present appeal is preferred by her husband. Considering the same a plausible ground

Manish Kumar Gupta, Rewari vs. ITO Ward-1, Narnaul

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1813/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Narpar Singh, Sr. DR

Accordingly, it is an appropriate case to give the assessee an opportunity to contest on merits and law, after explaining the reasons for delay in filing appeals before NFAC. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. The issues in appeal in ITA No.1811/Del/2025 and the those in ITA No.1812/Del/2025

Manish Kumar Gupta, Rewari vs. ITO Ward-1, Narnaul

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1812/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Narpar Singh, Sr. DR

Accordingly, it is an appropriate case to give the assessee an opportunity to contest on merits and law, after explaining the reasons for delay in filing appeals before NFAC. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. The issues in appeal in ITA No.1811/Del/2025 and the those in ITA No.1812/Del/2025

Manish Kumar Gupta, Rewari vs. ITO Ward-1, Narnaul

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1811/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Narpar Singh, Sr. DR

Accordingly, it is an appropriate case to give the assessee an opportunity to contest on merits and law, after explaining the reasons for delay in filing appeals before NFAC. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. The issues in appeal in ITA No.1811/Del/2025 and the those in ITA No.1812/Del/2025

Jins Dominic, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer, Kottayam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 68/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Binisha Baby, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset, it is observed that there was a delay in filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A). 4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

Jins Dominic, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer, Kottayam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 67/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Binisha Baby, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset, it is observed that there was a delay in filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A). 4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

Jins Dominic, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer, Kottayam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 66/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Binisha Baby, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset, it is observed that there was a delay in filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A). 4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

Jins Dominic, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer, Kottayam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 65/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Binisha Baby, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset, it is observed that there was a delay in filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A). 4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

Subramaniyam Kulandhaivel, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 976/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 976/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 Shri Subramaniyam The Income Tax Officer, Kulandhaivel, Vs. Ward 1, No.7/51, Vadugapalayam, Namakkal. Mavureddipatti Post, Tiruchengode, Namakkal – 637 212. Pan: Aznpk 3744M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Chandan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Chandan, JCIT
Section 250Section 253(6)

only instead of Rs.10,000/-. The Ld.AR submitted that the appeal was dismissed in limine by the FAA only on the ground of delay in filing appeal and not on merits. Therefore, as per Ld. AR, the fees as per clause (d) of Section

Dharampal Malik, Bemetara vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 267/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.266 & 267/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2017-18 Dharampal Malik Rakhi Joba, Tehsil Saja, Post- Deokar, Bemetara (C.G.)-491 331 Pan: Befpm9373E

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

explaining the said delay. For the sake of completeness, the relevant contents of the condonation petition are extracted as follows: “2. Reason for delay in filing appeal a) The appellant is an agriculturist and has completed his education only upto 10th standard from Hindi/Haryanvi medium, has limited understanding of technology ... appellate order and the appellant was not at all aware about the receipt of the saw Therefore, there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing appeal. The delay is not intentional.” For corroborating the aforesaid, the assessee had also filed “discharge summary” of the hospital which is made part

Dharampal Malik, Bemetara vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 266/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.266 & 267/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2017-18 Dharampal Malik Rakhi Joba, Tehsil Saja, Post- Deokar, Bemetara (C.G.)-491 331 Pan: Befpm9373E

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

explaining the said delay. For the sake of completeness, the relevant contents of the condonation petition are extracted as follows: “2. Reason for delay in filing appeal a) The appellant is an agriculturist and has completed his education only upto 10th standard from Hindi/Haryanvi medium, has limited understanding of technology ... appellate order and the appellant was not at all aware about the receipt of the saw Therefore, there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing appeal. The delay is not intentional.” For corroborating the aforesaid, the assessee had also filed “discharge summary” of the hospital which is made part

Kanan Sanatan Satyapriy, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 2478/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeekanan Sanatan Satyapriy Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 24(2)(1), A Wing 1302, Metropolish Mumbai Building, Near D.N. Nagar Maharastra-400058 Metro Station, Mumbai-400 058 Pan: Bmxps8907E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Darshit J Naik, CA (virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi – Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56(2)(x)Section 69B

duly executed on 06/06/2025 where the assesse has explained the delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. DR has accepted the reasons for delay in filing appeal before the Bench. Accordingly, we find that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time; therefore, we condone

Sharyou Taywade, Nagpur vs. DCIT, Circle 4, Nagpur

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

ITA 190/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Umang AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale
Section 250

That, there has been an inordinate delay of 519 days in filing the appeal before the Hon. ITAT, Nagpur Bench. 12. That, the delay in filing appeal is completely due to oversight and I was genuinely not aware of the order passed. I humbly plead before the Honourable Court that

Ramavtar Educational Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 2601/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankarramavtar Educational V/S. Commissioner Of Income Tax Trust, Room No. 2, बनाम (Exemptions), Mumbai, Ward Cutting No. 5, Girija – Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Te Sankar Patel Chawl, Kurar Building, Peddar Road, Dr. Village, Malad (East), Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai - 400 097, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400026, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadtr6649B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad (CIT DR)
Section 12A

under genuine belief that the second application was valid and proper and that 12A registration would be granted. This has resulted in a delay in filing appeal against the first rejection order dt. 21.05.2024. Therefore, the appeal filed against the second rejection order dt. 20.12.2024 was withdrawn, and the petitioner

Daraius Homi Bilimoria, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-55, Mumbai

In the result, the various grounds of appeal raised by the

ITA 2593/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Daraius Homi Bilimoria Commissioner Of Income Tax C/O Hfk Madan, 308, Apeejay House, Vs (Appeals) -55, Mumbai. 130, Shahid Bhagatsingh Marg, Mumbai – 400001. [Pan No. Aacpb4087E] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 112Section 254(1)Section 48Section 55(2)(b)Section 55A

thus, there is delay of 471 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but for the reasons beyond the control of assessee. The assessee is residing in Australia and for the purpose ... filed in time. The ld. AR submits that 7 Daraius Homi Bilimoria assessee has good case on merit and would suffer prejudice if delay in filing appeal is not condoned. The ld. AR of the assessee prayed for condoning the delay and to consider the appeal of assessee on merit

R.C School of St. Teresas, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2512/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) R.C. Church Of St. Josephs Ito Exemption Ward-2(2), St. Joseph R.C. Church, Robert Vs Mumbai Road, Colaba, Mumbai – 400005. [Pan No. Aaatr3519F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 254(1)

authorised signatory of assessee trust. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee is charitable-organisation engaged in the charitable activities. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The delay is only of 56 days and mainly caused due to the fact that assessee was pursing ... substantial justice are pitted against each other the cause of substantial justice may be preferred. Thus, keeping in view, the aforesaid principle the delay in filing appeal is condoned. 6. So far as merits of the case is concerned, we find that Assessing Officer/CPC as well

R.C.Church of St. Josephs, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1268/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) R.C. Church Of St. Josephs Ito Exemption Ward-2(2), St. Joseph R.C. Church, Robert Vs Mumbai Road, Colaba, Mumbai – 400005. [Pan No. Aaatr3519F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 254(1)

authorised signatory of assessee trust. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee is charitable-organisation engaged in the charitable activities. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The delay is only of 56 days and mainly caused due to the fact that assessee was pursing ... substantial justice are pitted against each other the cause of substantial justice may be preferred. Thus, keeping in view, the aforesaid principle the delay in filing appeal is condoned. 6. So far as merits of the case is concerned, we find that Assessing Officer/CPC as well

Smiles Foundation, Satara vs. CIT Exemption Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1113/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1113/Pun/2025 Smiles Foundation, V The Cit Exemption, Shop No.2, 1671/A 170 Sushila S. Pune. Vasant Vihar, Mangalwar Peth, Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Aasts2069K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Praful S. Shaha – Ar Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 Rejecting Assessee’S Application For Registration Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Clarification On Loan From Trustees: We Would Like To Appeal That The Loan Was Taken Interest Free From The Trustee. The Intention Was To Just Carry On The Activities Of The Trust Without Any Intention To Gain Benefit. Hence We Request You To Consider This Fact. Also The Appellant Has Made Significant Efforts To Follow Legal Requirements & Requests That This Matter Be Reconsidered.

Section 12Section 12ASection 80G(5)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) consider the facts and grant the necessary relief to the appellant.” Delay : 1.1 There is a delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal of 179 days. Assessee has filed an Affidavit of the Trustee. We have perused the Affidavit and we found the there

Riddhi Seva Kendra, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 370/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrariddhi Seva Kendra, Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru, C/O Subas Agarwal & Ito, Ward-1(1), Exempt, Associates, Advocates, Siddha Kolkata Income Tax Office, Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Vs 10B, Middleton Road, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata - 700071 Kolkata - 700069 (Pan: Aaatr2893Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

days may please be condoned and the case of your petitioner be heard on merit. In the circumstances, your petitioner prays that the delay in filing appeal before this Ld. Tribunal may kindly be condoned and the case be heard on merits or such order/orders be passed as this ... appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not condoning delay in filing appeal before him though there was a reasonable cause for the delay. 2. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought

University of North Bengal, Siliguri vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 2, Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 2649/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 250

Bench raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not condoning a modest delay in filing appeal of 15 days in spite of reasonable cause shown before him. 2. (a) For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held