“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

Santanu Das, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2582/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

liable to be quashed. 2) For that upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) despite there being reasonable cause for the delay in filing of appeal before CIT(A). 3) For that upon facts

Chilume Social Service Society, Bangalore vs. ITO(Exemptions) Ward-1, Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 250/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CA

Section 11Section 139(1)

234A, 234B, and 234C was levied based on an incorrect computation of tax liability. The interest levy must be deleted. 5. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal: The CIT (A) failed to appreciate the genuine o reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The delay was caused

Chilume Social Service Society, Bangalore vs. ITO(Exemptions) Ward-1, Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 249/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CA

Section 11Section 139(1)

Chilume Social Service Society, Bangalore vs. ITO(Exemptions) Ward-1, Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 248/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CA

Section 11Section 139(1)

Lokumal Kishinchand Charity Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1267/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Lokumal Kishinchand Charity Trust Ito Exemption Ward-1(4), 629-A, Gazdar House, 3Rd Floor, Vs Mumbai J Shanker Seth Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai – 400002. [Pan No. Aaatl2570L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)Section 44A

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 and it was for the reasons that the person who was authorised in finalising accounts and financial statement ... other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue on the plea of condonation by delay submits that there is inordinate delay in filing appeal. The assessee has not explained the delay in proper way. The explanation of assessee for condoning the delay is nothing but a self serving story. Affidavit

Mohammad Mohsin Qureshi, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4218/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Mohammad Mohsin Qureshi Ito Ward-42(2)(4) Room No. 375, Plot No. 2, Shashtri Vs Kautilya Bhavan, Maharashtra. Nagar, Near Bus Depot, Bandra West, Maharashtra-400050. [Pan No. Bexpk0365Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya Ca Revenue By Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 21.08.2024 Date Of Hearing 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.05.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

Revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee fairly submits that there is delay of 177 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee has already filed application for condonation of delay. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that ... have gone through the orders of lower authorities. Firstly, I will consider the plea of ld. AR of the assesse in condonation of delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. Before me, the ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that there is no intentional or deliberate delay in filing appeal

Vijay Puri, Nagaur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Nagaur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 88/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 144BSection 44ASection 69A

appeal, due to bonafide reasons which were duly supported with an affidavit of the assessee authenticating the content of the reasons for the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT Appeal/NFAC has dismissed the appeal without going into merits ... case while confirming the finding of the AO in an exparte assessment order. He pleaded that the delay in filing appeal may be condoned, and appeal may be admitted on merits. The Ld. DR could not controvert the content of the affidavit and accordingly had no objection to the request

Bhopal Garh Co Operative Marketing Society Limited, Bhopalgarh vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Jodhpur

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 83/JODH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

appeal was caused due to bonafide reasons duly supported with an affidavit of the assessee authenticating the content of the reasons for the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT Appeal/NFAC has dismissed the appeal without going into merits ... days. He pleaded that the assessee has good arguable case on merits, and he may be given one opportunity by condonation of short delay in filing appeal before the CIT (A)/NFAC and restoring the matter to the file of CIT (A) for afresh consideration on merits

Lions Nab Community Eyecare Centre, Miraj, Sangli vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 257/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.257/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Lions Nab Community Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore. Eyecare Centre, Plot No.P-39, Midc, Miraj, Sangli- 416410. Pan : Aabfl4373L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is Recalled Matter. Vide Order Dated In M.A. No.151/Pun/2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Filed Against The Order Of The Tribunal In Ita No.257/Pun/2022 Dated 06.01.2023 (Appeal Filed By The Assessee) Was Recalled To Adjudicate The Issue De Novo. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Condonation Application Duly

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(i)Section 11(1)(ii)Section 11(2)Section 143(1)

case of the assessee. Assessee had filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC against the said order. There was a delay in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC of 7 and ½ years. The assessee submitted before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that the 4 staff of the assessee

Ajinkyatara Nagari Sahkari Patpedhi Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Mumbai

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

ITA 638/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

Assessee had filed appeal in time and was heard by the Ld. CIT in favour of the assesse, 10. I say that the delay in filing appeal of 75 days before NFAC was bonafide and unintentional. 11. I say that the above stated facts are true and correct

Bajrangllal Mangalchand Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6837/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 249(2)Section 254(1)Section 50CSection 69A

delay of 415 days in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A). In form 35, the assessee has mentioned that there is no delay in filing appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) recorded that assessee has not given any reason for explaining delay. Thus, the appeal of assessee was dismissed as unadmitted ... Consultant while filing appeal against the penalty order. The assessee immediately filed fresh appeal. Thus, there was no intentional or deliberate delay in filing appeal belatedly The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that he has already place on record copy of screenshot of ITBA portal showing of filing first

Vineet Prakash Pol, Nashik vs. ACIT Circle-1, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 302/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vineet Prakash Pol, V The Acit, F-16, Midc, Ambad, S. Circle-1, Nashik. Nashik – 422010. Maharashtra. Pan: Abkpp4357J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated31.01.2024For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.13,81,195 Out Of The Total Disallowance Of Rs.30,74,834 Made By The A.O In Respect Of Interest Paid To Partnership Firms On Loans Obtained From Them Without Appreciating That The Said Disallowance Was Not Justified On Facts & In Law. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That While

Section 250

challenging the validity of the disallowance of interest on merits. Accordingly, Ground No.1 is dismissed as not pressed. 7. There is a delay in filing appeal before ITAT. We have perused the Affidavit filed by the Assessee and are convinced that ITA No.302/PUN/2025[A] there is sufficient and reasonable cause

Ramjibhai Devjibhai Mokariya, Porbandar vs. The ITO Ward-2(4), Porbandar

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

ITA 230/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 May 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(2)(c)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

intention to mislead and was due to circumstances beyond control of the appellant. The appellant therefore prays that the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal may be condoned. 3. On the other hand, the Learned Senior DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation ... delay deserves to be condoned and appeal of the assessee should be decided on merits in accordance with law. Accordingly, I condone the delay in filing appeal before Ld.CIT(A) and admit the appeal of the assessee to adjudicate on merit. 12. So far as merits of the case

Ramesh Garware Charity Trust, Pune vs. Exemption Ward 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 776/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.776/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ramesh Garware Charitable V The Exemption Ward- Trust, S. 1(1), Pune. P B Box 3, Ramesh Garware Farm, Nda Road, Khadakwasla, Pune – 411023. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaatr6365D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Dalpat Shah – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax[Jcit(A)], Thiruvanantpura Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 14.08.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 11(2)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 234BSection 234CSection 234FSection 250

there was no response from the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.” 2.1 Thus, ld.CIT(A) has stated that there is a delay in filing appeal. However, it is noted that the Assessment Order was passed on 18.03.2020. Covid-19 Lockdown was declared on 15.03.2020. The Hon’ble Supreme Court ... there is no delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A). 2.2 Therefore, in this case, there is no delay in filing appeal. Therefore, the order of the ld.CIT(A) is set-aside to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised

Kanubhai Rahabhai Bharvad, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 171/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT

Vishnu Shekuji Gajare, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

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

ITA 706/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.706/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vishnu Shekuji Gajare, V The Income Tax Officer, Chikalthana, Jalna Road, S. Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. Aurangabad, Chikalthana I A, Chikalthana Industrial Area S.O, Maharashtra – 431006. Pan: Azppg9504M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate – Ar Revenue By Shri Manish Mehta – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 28.01.2025 For The A.Y.2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld.

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 288Section 69A

Assessee and dismissed appeal of the assessee on account of delay. 5. In this case, there was a valid and sufficient reason for delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) as assessment order was not served on assessee. The service of notice and service of assessment order goes

Coal Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 36(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 302/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(f)

after a delay of 318 days for this the assessee has filed condonation petition., which are as follows- “An application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Ld. Tribunal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A). NFAC, dated 02.01.2024 relevant to AY: 2019-2020. 1. That ... days may please he 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 appeal be heard on merits or such order/orders be passed as this

Usha Marazban Pithawalla, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2095/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 144Section 144BSection 147

Usha Marazban Pithawalla Appellant Versus Assessing Officer (Income tax Faceless Assessment Unit) Respondent To, Respected Sir, Subject: Request for CondonaƟon of Delay in Filing Appeal Respectfully Showeth: 1.That the abovenamed appellant, Mrs. Usha Marazban Pithawalla, haspreferred thisapplication for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal 2.That the appellant

Prafulbhai Jagubhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bardoli

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

ITA 1294/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1294/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Prafulbhai Jagubhai Patel, Vs. Ito, 2/7, Dastan, Palsana, Surat – Ward - 1, 394 310 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bvopp8701K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Shrijignesh Parikh, Ar With Shri Marufkhan Pathan, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

Jagabhai Patel CWT, (2006) 287 ITR 52 (Del) and held that the appellant had not made a case for having “sufficient cause” for delay in filing appeal. The appeal filed by the appellant was held to be invalid and non-maintainable, being out of time. He, therefore, did not admit

Ajeet Kumar Rampuria, Tonk vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Tonk

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

ITA 44/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Jhanwar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250

which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: “Sub.: Request to condone the delay in filing appeal Dear Sir, We draw your kind attention towards order passed by Id. CIT(A) u/s 250 dated 30.08.2024. The assessee could not file appeal