← 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

Mahmad Atik Farukmiya Sheikh, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward (5), Valsad

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

ITA 819/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.819/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Mahmad Atik Farukmiya Sheikh, Vs. The Ito, Masjid Faliya Dehali, Dhagadmal, Ward – 5, Valsad - 396126 Valsad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Duaps5433Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

Section 115BSection 253(3)Section 69A

revenue submitted that Bench may decide the issue as deemed proper. 5. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue of delay in filing appeal. We find that the assessee was unable to pursue his case as there was lack of guidance and assistance to the assessee with

Hariram Hospital, Alwar vs. PCIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1535/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

found that litigant deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of appeal.  Nimesh Kanubhai Topiwala Vs DCIT (ITAT Surat) ITA No. 242/Srt/2023 Held that the delay in filing appeal before ldCIT(A)/ NFAC is not deliberate or intentional or gross negligence on part of assessee, therefore, considering the principle that when technical ... consideration and cause of substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice may be preferred, therefore, delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is condoned. And the order of ld CIT(A) is set aside.  IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH 'C' Sri Suhas Suresh

Niranjanbhai Ishvarbhai Patel, Banaskantha vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Himatnagar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 98/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. D.R
Section 147

Ld.CIT(A). 4.1 To this the Ld. Counsel for the assessee responded by placing an affidavit of the assessee explaining the reasons for delay in filing appeal to the Ld.CIT(A) on oath. 5. Having heard the contentions of both the parties , I am of the view that the present

Harjinder Singh, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Panipat

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 70/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Itat. The Assessee

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

counsel. However, the appellant has not submitted any evidence to substantiate his claim. Further, it is pertinent to mention here the fact that delay in filing appeal is of more than 1 year. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is without any substance in it. The appellant was required

Harish Dharma Rathod (Represented Through Legal Heir Pushpa H. Rathod), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 817/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Harish Dharma Rathod Ito Ward (Represented Through Legal 42(2)(3) Heir Pushpa H. Rathod) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Room No. 37, Bmc Chowl M.K. Road 150 Suklaji Street, Behind New Marine Nishant Cinema, Mumbai Lines, Mumbai 400 008. 400 020. Pan : Abkpr9312B Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Sachin Kumar
Section 250

observed that the appellant filed an appeal with a delay of 134 days. As there is a delay in filing appeal, the appellant filed an application before Ld. CIT(A) requesting him to condone the delay and adjudicate the issue on merits. In this application, the appellant gave reasons

Harikrishna Jewels, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

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

ITA 354/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.354/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Physical Court Hearing) Harikrishna Jewels, Principal Commissioner Of 201, Sunstar Building, Opp. बनाम/ Income Tax-1,, Surat, Room New Patidar Bhavan, No.123, Aaykar Bhawan, Near Vs. Mahidharpura, Surat-395 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil 003 Hospital, Surat -395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagfh 3864 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2025

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263

assessee submits that there was delay of 358 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The appellant has filed application for condonation of delay in filing appeal in respect of order u/s 263 of the Act of the Ld.PCIT dated 25.03.2022. It is submitted that order u/s 263 was passed

Bhishm Chauhan, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Fbd, Faridabad

In the result, ITA Nos.3969/Del/2024 and 3971/Del/2024

ITA 3970/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

application in ITA Nos.3969/Del/2024 and 3970/Del/2024 and _ another application in ITA No.3971/Del/2024 both dated 24.03.2024. In applications, it is stated that the delay in filing appeals be condoned considering the custody and mental health conditions, ITA Nos.3969, 3970 & 3971/Del/2024 ex parte orders under Section ... mental illness, he could not file appeals within period of ITA Nos.3969, 3970 & 3971/Del/2024 limitation. In applications dated 24.03.2024, appellant/assessee requested condonation of delay in filing appeals due to custody and mental health, setting aside ex parte order under Section 144 of the Act and reassessment income as per section

Bhishm Chauhan, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Fbd, Faridabad

In the result, ITA Nos.3969/Del/2024 and 3971/Del/2024

ITA 3969/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

application in ITA Nos.3969/Del/2024 and 3970/Del/2024 and _ another application in ITA No.3971/Del/2024 both dated 24.03.2024. In applications, it is stated that the delay in filing appeals be condoned considering the custody and mental health conditions, ITA Nos.3969, 3970 & 3971/Del/2024 ex parte orders under Section ... mental illness, he could not file appeals within period of ITA Nos.3969, 3970 & 3971/Del/2024 limitation. In applications dated 24.03.2024, appellant/assessee requested condonation of delay in filing appeals due to custody and mental health, setting aside ex parte order under Section 144 of the Act and reassessment income as per section

Ritesh Kumar K. Bafna, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1145/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Ritesh Kumar K. Bafna Ito – 20(3)(1) Piramal Chamber, Parel, Flat No. 102, Pratikash Tower, B Wing Mumbai - 400012 Vs. R.S. Nimkar Marg, Grant Road, Mumbai – 400008. Pan: Aabpb 7160 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.J. Bafna, ARFor Respondent: Ms Pradnya Gholap, Sr. DR
Section 254(1)

similar circumstances, when the assesses were facing difficulty in filing appeal electronically or were not aware about filing appeal electronically, similar delay in filing appeal was condoned. In fact, the assessee has filed appeal in physical form well in time and on filing appeal electronically on 11.07.2016, the delay ... technical reason should have been condoned. The ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated various grounds of appeal on merit, therefore, technical delay in filing appeal may be condoned and the ld. CIT(A) may be directed to decide the appeal on merit. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that

M/S Shakti Spinners Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Circle-7, Ludhiana

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 599/CHANDI/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)

appeal before Tribunal against order of Principal Commissioner passed under section 263 after a delay of 1740 days contending that there was a delay in filing appeal as income tax practitioner of assessee did not advise assessee to file appeal against order passed by Principal Commissioner under bona fide belief

Ayyappan Pillai Krishnakumar, Trivandrum vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Trivandrum

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

ITA 1059/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.K.K.John, ITPFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 250

were mailed to his friends email id and the assessee was not conversant with opening email etc. It is prayed that delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal may be condoned for rendering substantial justice. 2.1 We have perused the affidavit filed by the assessee. We are of the view

Muslim Lalmohammed Solanki, Ahmedabad vs. Income-Tax Office, Ward 6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to

ITA 433/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

income u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained cash deposit. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) wherein the delay in filing appeal was condoned. However, despite multiple hearing notices issued on 20.05.2022, 16.08.2023, 11.01.2024, and 21.10.2024, the assessee failed to file any written submission or supporting

Abhay Hemrajji Sharma, Karnataka, Koppal vs. Income Tax Offier, ITO Ward(One) Koppal

In the result, this ground of appeal is also allowed

ITA 2145/BANG/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Apr 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Raghavendra Chakravrthy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also drawn our attention on the petition for condonation of delay in filing appeal by submitting that the assessee due to certain personal exigencies had to travel to Rajasthan due to which the assessee could not file

Shailesh Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, ITO Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai, Vashi Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 698/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhshri Girish Agrawalshailesh Co Operative Housing Society Limited Plot No. 12, Sector, Sector 19A Nerul (East) Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra -400706. Pan No. Aaaas8609J ……………. Appellant Versus

For Appellant: Ms. Vidya Jayakumar, CA/ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 254(1)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessee is also eligible for deduction of interest earned from nationalised bank. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) may be condoned and matter may be adjudicated on merit in view of the series of decision wherein co-operative banks are considered

Nisar Ahmed Khan, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 606/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhshri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) बनाम Nisar Ahmed Khan Acit, Circle – 20(2) 1St Floor, Room No. 23, Bootwala Piramal Chamber, Chawl, Duncan Road, M.A. Road, Vs Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai - 400008 Mumbai-400012 Pan No. Aiipa2008C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 69A

assessee was not aware about the passing of impugned order by ld CIT(A), therefore, we find a reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing appeal. Thus, delay of 455 days in filing appeal before Tribunal is condoned. Now, adverting the merits of the case. 5. We find that

M/S. Junior Chamber International, Ranchi vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Ranchi

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 33/RAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 12A

Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submitted that no plausible explanation was mentioned by the ld. AR of the assessee for the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for any leniency at this stage. 4. We have considered the rival submissions ... inordinate and the assessee is not benefitted for delayed filing of appeal, therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances, we condone the delay in filing appeal and admit the same for hearing and adjudication. 5. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant society is an association

Ambika Sahoo, Jajpur vs. The Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 81/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Apr 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ, कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जार्ज माथन, न्यायिक सदस्य

Shri Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Rathod, Village Dudana, Taluka Kodinar, Dist. Gir Somnath vs. The ITO Ward-1, Junagadh

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

ITA 880/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 880 /Rjt/ 2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Rathod The Ito, Ward-1, Junagadh Vs. 8, Karadiya Gyati Vistar, Village Ito, Bhootnath Chamber, Opp. Dudana Of Kodiar Taluka, Boudin Collage, Dist. Gir, Somnath - 362720 Junagadh-362001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awypr7036H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Aggarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Aggarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 253(5)Section 254Section 69A

well and knowledge of appellate order u/s 250 of the Act dated 22.09.2023 came to notice very recently during subsequent penalty proceedings. The delay in filing appeal u/s 254 of the Act was advertent and innocent mistake due to compelling circumstances. There was no intention to defraud the revenue

Satish Kumar Radheshyam Choudhari, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, Indore

ITA 406/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 144Section 147Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 253

Therefore, there has been a delay of 628 days in filing the appeal. The appellant in Form No. 35 has attributed delay in filing appeal due to delay at the end of the tax consultant. The relevant extract of the appellant with respect to condonation of delay is reproduced

M/S. Jagruti Computech Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 1(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 5751/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri H. S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)

have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. 5. We find that the Director of the Assessee Company had explained delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) by way of affidavit relevant extract of which reads as under: “3. That I am a director of Jagruti Computech