“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

Smt Neha Prasanna Ghotage, Belagavi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Belagavi

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 263/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

Smt Neha Prasanna Ghotage, Belagavi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Belagavi

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 262/PAN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

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)

Smt Neha Prasanna Ghotage, Belagavi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Belagavi

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 261/PAN/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

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)

Smt Neha Prasanna Ghotage, Belagavi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Belagavi

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 260/PAN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

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)

Smt Neha Prasanna Ghotage, Belagavi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, 2, Belagavi

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 259/PAN/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

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)

St George Orthodox Syrian Church Chinchwad, Pune vs. CIT (E), Pune

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

ITA 2708/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2708/Pun/2025 St. George Orthodox Syrian Vs. Cit (Exemption) Church, Pune S.No.35/3/1, Dattawadi, Akurdi, Pune 411035 Maharashtra Pan : Aarts3501P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri B.S. RajpurohitFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

being filed even delayed in the interest of natural justice. This is the reason for delay in filing of appeal. 4. That the delay in filing appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate but was due to facts discussed above only. Actually, the appellant has to explain delay of each ... However, Punjab & Haryana High Court held in the case of MS Poonam Indus Vs CIT (178 Taxmann 319) that the discretion to condone delay in filing appeal should be decided judiciously and in pragmatic manner to advance the substantial cause of justice. The same ratio was also laid down

Raman Garg, Narnaul vs. ITO, Ward-1, Narnaul

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6454/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147

Page 1 ITA No.6454/Del/2025 Raman Garg (AY: 2018-19) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI

Kabel Metal Power Cables Ltd, Thane vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4789/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarita No.4789/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala a/w Shri Saiprasad GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

made any strong objection against the submission of the assessee. Accordingly, we find that there is a sufficient cause in delay in filing appeal before us. Accordingly, we condone the delay for 151 days for both the appeals and both the appeals are taken for adjudication. 3. Since both

Kabel Metal Power Cables Ltd, Thane vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4788/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarita No.4789/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala a/w Shri Saiprasad GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Kunkulagunta Mallikarjuna Rao, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view of the CIT(A), who, in my view, in the absence of any plausible explanation of the assessee regarding the delay involved in filing of the appeal, had r...

ITA 579/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69

from the date on which the order was served. The appellant mentioned 'Yes' against Column No. 14 of Form 35- "Whether there is delay in filing appeal." 2.1 In the facts of the case filed by the appellant has stated that - " The Assessing Officer has passed the Assessment order

Vishnu Janardhan Shirolkar Mahajan Wady Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)-2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 6603/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Section 11Section 12ASection 250Section 254(1)

appeal of assessee were dismissed by Id CIT(A) for the want of delay by not condoning the delay in filing appeal.Once, the delay in filing appeal was not condoned, resultantly, both the appeals were dismissed as unadmitted. In both the years, Central Processing Centre (CPC) processed the return ... availing benefit of exemption under section 11 of Income Tax Act. The Id AR of the assessee submits that there was no delay in filing appeal from the date of knowledge of the order of CPC. Even if it is considered as delay, it was not intentional and deliberate

Vishnu Janardhan Shirolkar Mahajan Wady Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)-2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 6602/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 250Section 254(1)

appeal of assessee were dismissed by ld CIT(A) for the want of delay by not condoning the delay in filing appeal.Once, the delay in filing appeal was not condoned, resultantly, both the appeals were dismissed as unadmitted. In both the years, Central Processing Centre (CPC) processed the return ... availing benefit of exemption under section 11 of Income Tax Act. The ld AR of the assessee submits that there was no delay in filing appeal from the date of knowledge of the order of CPC. Even if it is considered as delay, it was not intentional and deliberate

Ashok Kumar Jain, Indore vs. DCIT - 1(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 723/IND/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

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

Section 143(3)

assessee in Form No. 35, the relevant portion of Form No. 35 is scanned below: | Appeal filing details : | | | | | |-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--| | 14. | Whether there is delay in filing appeal | Yes | | | | 15. | If reply to 14 is Yes, enter the grounds for condonation of delay (not exceeding 500 words) | The appeal was required ... filed by 25.10.22, however, due to Diwali festival the offices were closed from 22.10.22 to 26.10.22 and therefore there was delay in filing appeal | | | 4. Ld. AR requested that in the situation, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have taken a judicious view and accepted the assessee's explanation

Giraffe Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5303/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 37(1)

opinion, does not constitute sufficient cause, 4 Giraffe Developers Private Limited and that pendency or outcome of penalty proceedings cannot justify condonation of delay in filing appeal against a quantum order. 11. Even otherwise, the plea that the assessment is void for want of jurisdiction cannot be accepted

The Samastipur District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Samastipur vs. Deputy Commissioner, Darbhanga

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 508/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) provided various opportunities to the assessee as per para 4 of his order, 7 times opportunities were provided but the assessee did not respond any of the notices. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) after relying on various judgments decided the issue on 10.12.2022 on the basis of material available on record and upheld the order of the AO. 4. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the

For Respondent: Sh. Manab Adak, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

condoned or not in this case. 28. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in somewhat similar situation, delay in filing appeal for the enhancement of compensation had been condoned by this Court. He placed reliance upon the case of Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives ... State of Haryana & Ors.9. In this case, delay in filing appeal was condoned as in other appeals compensation awarded at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. yd. was upheld and the proposed appellants were also held entitled to the same benefit of compensation at the rate of Rs.200

Saheed Darshan Filling Station, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 3, Khanna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 1736/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1736/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shaheed Darshan Filling Station, The Ito, Village-Iraq, Kohara Road, Vs Ward-3, Machhiwara, So-Irak, Ludhiana. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aarfs1129H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & S.A. No. 5/Chd/2026 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1736/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shaheed Darshan Filling Station, The Ito, Village-Iraq, Kohara Road, Vs Ward-3, Machhiwara, So-Irak, Ludhiana. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aarfs1129H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sifatpreet Singh, Ca & Shri Amanjot Singh, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Sifatpreet Singh, CA and Shri Amanjot Singh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

knowledge whether impugned assessment order was passed or not. 8. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT (Appeals). Since issue of re-opening made by jurisdictional AO instead of Faceless AO is involved, therefore, instead of relegating

Sahil Phutela, Ambala City vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Ambala

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1383/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1383/Chd/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Sahil Phutela, The Ito, C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh,Advocate, Vs Ward -4, 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. Ambala. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Cmvpp7771G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 249Section 253Section 271ESection 3Section 5

inferred that assessee would have acted diligently if it was in his knowledge. Accordingly, I A.Y.2017-18 7 condone the delay in filing appeal before ld.CIT (Appeals) and proceed to decide the appeal on merit myself. 9. A perusal of the record would indicate that assessee has not repaid any loan

Jan Sahyog Vikas Trust, Banaskantha vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1017/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026

Bench: us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: 1. Learned CIT(E) erred in law and facts by making the order by rejecting the application filed in form 10AB for registration u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the IT act for not producing documents required by the authority.

For Appellant: Ms. Urjita Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-D.R

Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

notice issued by the authority and not submitted appeal on time against rejection order, hence we will require permission for condonation of delay in filing appeal. Appellant craves to add, alter or delete any ground either before or 3. in the course hearing of the appeal. 5. Ms. Urjita Shah

Vishnuanna Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Limited, Sangli vs. ITO Ward-5, Sangli

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

ITA 3005/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3005/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Vishnuanna Sahakari Kharedi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vikri Sangh Limited, Ward-5, Sangli Plot No.362-363A, Vasant Market Yard, Sangli – 416416, Maharashtra Pan : Aaaam0485A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 80P(2)(d)

filing the appeal. Therefore, in view of the above facts, I am constrained to uphold the Assessing Officer, in absence of explanation for delay in filing appeal.” 5. Aggrieved with the inaction of the First Appellate Authority, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal assailing the impugned order

Nafeeja Bi, Shimoga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shivamogga

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

ITA 2323/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Nafeeja Bi, Ito, W/O Shabbir Ahamed Nusrath Manzil, Ward – 1, Jannath Nagar Sagar, Vs. Shivamogga – 1. Sagar – 577 401, Karnataka. Pan No : Cqkpb 0509 D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Varun Bhat, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Varun Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 250Section 253Section 44A

appeal before this Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention on an affidavit dated 14.10.2025 stating therein the reasons for delay in filing appeal which are reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience: Page 4 of 6 3.1 On going through the above affidavit, we take