“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

Deputy Chief Engineer Con. East Coast Railway, Jajpur vs. ITO, Ward TDS, Cuttack

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

ITA 781/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

appeals before the Tribunal and also the delay in filing of appeals before the ld. CIT(A). Since we have condoned the delay in filing appeal in ITA Dy. Chief Engineer Con. Vs ITO No. 780/Ctk/2025 before Tribunal, therefore, keeping in view the principle of consistency on similar ... these appeals before this Tribunal. In these appeals also, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A). Since, we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal in ITA No. 780/CTK/2025 and restored the appeal

Deputy Chief Engineer Con. East Coast Railway, Jajpur vs. ITO, Ward TDS, Cuttack

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

ITA 780/CTK/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Audrey Bernice Roy, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam

ITA 494/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194JSection 44A

showing utter disregard to the legislature. 2.8 In view of the facts as discussed hereinabove and the judicial decisions on the matter of delay in filing appeals, this appeal is not admitted for adjudication as it is delayed and not filed within the time limit provided and no sufficient cause

Bhikhabhai Somabhai Patel, Sabarkantha vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Himatnagar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2597/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir VoraFor Respondent: Shri Rajkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 270ASection 57

facts stated above along with supporting documents." 10. Considering all the above, we find that the assessee had adduced sufficient cause for the delay in filing appeal. It is not denied that the assessee is an agriculturist whose land had been acquired for irrigation scheme of the government. The facts

Bhikhabhai Somabhai Patel, Sabarkantha vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Himatnagar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2596/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir VoraFor Respondent: Shri Rajkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 270ASection 57

Imtiyaz Ahmad Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7683/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarimtiyaz Ahmad Khan Vs. Fao- Faceless 212, New Bharat Assessment Centre, Compound, Near Kalpana Delhi/ Talkies, Near Baxi Singh Ito, Ward 41(1)(2), Petrol Pump, L.B.S. Marg, Kautilya Bhavan, Kurla, (West), Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex, 400070 Mumbai - 400051 Pan/Gir No. Bkzpk033E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mohammed Shadab Revenue By Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 17.10.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, That The Id. Cit(A) Has Seriously Erred In Law & On The Facts & It In The Circumstances Of The Case In 2 Imtiyaz Ahmand Khan

Section 143(3)Section 250

filed belatedly with a delay of 1577 days, whereas, the Appellant provided cogent and bonafide arguments corroborated with documentary evidences for the said delay in filing appeal with ld. CIT(A). The said Alleged difference being fully explainable thereby the said Order ... submitted, however the Id. CIT(A) dismissed the case without adjudicating on the merits of the case and solely relying on basis of delay in filing appeal is against the principles of natural justice. 3. The Appellant further submits that the learned CIT(A) has erred

Universal Industrial Equipment and Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 350/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 156ASection 254(1)Section 31(1)

delay of 126 days in filing both the appeals. The Universal Industrial Equipment And Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 349 & 350/Nag/2023 delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay which is supported by affidavit of Nitin Shankarrao Rakhunde, Manager ... condonation of delay in filing the present appeals. We find that before us the ld AR of the assessee vehemently urged that the delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reasons explained by her. Considering the plea of ld AR of the assessee

Universal Industrial Equipment and Technical Services Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Nagpur

ITA 349/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 156ASection 254(1)Section 31(1)

learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that there is delay of 126 days in filing both the appeals. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay which is supported by affidavit of Nitin Shankarrao Rakhunde, Manager ... condonation of delay in filing the present appeals. We find that before us the Id AR of the assessee vehemently urged that the delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reasons explained by her. Considering the plea of Id AR of the assessee

Aman Gupta, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Ltu Chennai, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

ITA 2565/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2565/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Aman Gupta, The Deputy Commissioner A-1, Vrindavan Enclave, Vs. Of Income Tax, 189, Lloyds Road, Circle 1, Gopalapuram, Ltu, Chennai – 600 086. Chennai. Pan: Adzpa 0417D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Tharish, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri V. Tharish, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 147ASection 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

indirect taxation matters………... "Look, we as citizens of this country have genuine concern about revenue losses to the government on account of delay in filing appeals. We see that appeals are being filed with 500-600 days delay and they are dismissed by the courts. 10. Allowing belated jurisdictional grounds

M/S Gaurav Construction Co., Korba vs. ITO-1, Korba

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 32/RPR/2026[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.32/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12

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

noted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of huge inordinate delay in filing appeal of the assessee before the said authority. There is delay of 9 years and 233 days for filing the appeal by the assessee before

Laxmanbhai Premjibhai Savani, Junagadh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 Jnd, Junagadh

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

ITA 845/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

reasons explained by the assessee for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A). Having heard both the parties, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves ... condoned. We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A). 5. On merit, we note that assessee could not plead his case successfully before the Ld. CIT(A). We also note that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of provisions

Jatin Dhansukh Khatri, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 8978/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethjatin Dhansukh Khatri, Vs. Ito Ward-42(2)(3), J/204 Raj Gulmohar Bldg Kautilya Bhavan, No.1 Near St. Xavier Mumbai-400051. School Unitech Westend Virar (West) Thane-401303. Pan/Gir No: Ahgpk2461A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 264

order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that there was no delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee had, in fact, filed a revision petition u/s 264 of the Act dated 07.12.2018 before the PCIT ... PCIT u/s 264 of the Act and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. The Ld.AR, therefore, submitted that there is no delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) and the appellant should be given fresh opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A). 6. On the other hand

Amarchand Lakhmichand Narang, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 12(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8977/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing)

Section 254(1)

have been heard and record perused. Ms Saloni Sankhe learned Advocate/ Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that there was little delay in filing appeal before ld CIT(A). The Assessing Officer (AO) passed assessment order on 26.12.2018. First appeal before ld CIT(A) was filed only ... case on merit. Considering the circumstances explained by ld AR of the assessee, which we have noted above, we find that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional, rather the assessee is interested to pursue his case on merit, hence delay in filing appeal before

New Age Knowledge Solutions Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

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

ITA 5851/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing)

Section 250Section 254(1)Section 68

find that there is no intentional or deliberate delay in ITA 5851/Mum/2025 (AY 2010-11) New Age Knowledge Solutions Limited filing appeal. Thus, delay in filing appeal before Tribunal is condoned. Now, adverting to merits of the case. 5. We find that ld. CIT(A) passed the order

Progressive Mega Structures Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 6298/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Amit Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 250

mail id of the consultant, the assessee remained unaware about the ex- parte assessment order for a long time which resulted in delay in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A). In view of these facts, Ld. AR has requested that the matter may be remanded

Smt Neha Prasanna Ghotage, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Karwar

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 268/PAN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 144Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(1)Section 271(1)(c)

more than 5 to 6 years after the release of spouse for jail. Thus, the appellant failed to show that delay in filing appeals before first appellate authority was undeliberate. The appellant all along remained inactive and material placed on record did in no manner displays that it was vigilant