“ delay in filing appeal ”

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.

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.

2 SCC 107 · 1987 · Supreme Court

451

Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy

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.

7 SCC 123 · 1998 · Supreme Court

368

Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr

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.

398 ITR 250 · 2017 · High Court

291

Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others

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.

118 ITR 507 · 1979 · Supreme Court

268

Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT

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.

280 ITR 357 · 2006 · High Court

182

CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors.

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.

153 ITR 596 · 1985 · High Court

171

Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Ms Katiji and Others

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.

167 ITR 5 · 1987 · Supreme Court

164

ITA 134/NAG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

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

Vnit Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Nagpur

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)

Whether on the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred rejecting request for condonation of delay in filing appeal without issuing any prior show cause notice thereby, denying opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2 VNIT Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.134Nag./2024 3. Whether

Sangati the Fellowship, Vasai - Virar vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

ITA 2447/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals vide submission dated 24.06.2022 and 16.03.2023." 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Appellant, a trust registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1850, filed return of income for

For Appellant: Shri Darpan JawaleFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

appeal before the CIT(A) should have been condoned. Accordingly, the order, dated 21/02/2024, passed by the CIT(A) is set aside. Delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned and the issue raised in appeal before CIT(A) is restored back to the file

Deelip Ganpatrao Korde, Nashik vs. ACIT Circle 1, Nashik

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

ITA 1373/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1373/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Deelip Ganpatrao Korde, V The Assistant Shop No.1, Purvi Apt Behind S Commissioner Of Sai Palace, Chetna Nagar, Nashik Income Tax, Circle-1, – 422009. Nashik. Pan: Afnpk2831F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, Dated 16.05.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.74,64,500 U/S 68 Towards Alleged Unexplained Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period Made By The A.O. In The Ex-Parte Asst, Order U/S 144 On The Ground That The Appellant Had Failed To Explain Source Of The Cash Deposits In The Course Of The Ex-Parte Asst, Proceedings Without Appreciating That The Said Addition Was Not Justified On Facts & In Law.

Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 274Section 68

information required by the learned Assessing Officer nor did he respond well in time to the assessment order, thereby causing delay in filing appeal. 4. The appellant did not produce the required information as he was oblivious of any notice issued to him on the above mentioned email id. Owing

Chandan Hassanand Lokwani, Nashik vs. ACIT Circle 1, Nashik

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

ITA 1358/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1358/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Chandan Hassanand Lokwani, V The Assistant 2 Jawahar Market, Nashik Road, S Commissioner Of Maharashtra – 422101. Income Tax, Circle-1, Pan : Abcpl7072N Nashik. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, Dated 18.05.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 108 Days In Filing The Appeal Without Appreciating That The Said Delay Was Due To Reasonable Cause & The Said Delay Ought To Have Been Condoned In The Interest Of Justice. 2) The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That In This Case, The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Was Made By The A.O. Towards Non Deduction Of Tds On Interest Paid To Three Nbfc In Spite Of The Fact That The Appellant Had Furnished Ca Certificate In Form 26A To Prove That The Payees Had Offered The Interest To Tax & Paid Taxes Thereon & Hence, The Said Addition Resulted Into Double Taxation Of The Same Income & Therefore, The Impugned Delay Of 108 Days In Filing Appeal Ought To Have Been Condoned In View Of The Ratio Laid Down By Hon'Ble Madras High Court In Case Of Venkatadri Traders Ltd. V. Cit [248 Itr 681].

Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 40

Form No.35 assessee has mentioned reason for delay as Illness and Family Problems. Assessee has filed an Affidavit to explain the reason for delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The relevant part of the Affidavit is reproduced here as under : 3 4. On perusal of the Affidavit

Shri Adinath Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahpat Sanstha Maryadit Nandani, Kolhapur vs. ITO Ward 1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1348/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1347 & 1348/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 Shri Adinath Gramin Bigar V The Income Tax Officer, Sheti Sahpat Sanstha Maryadit S Ward-1, Kolhapur. Nandani, At Post: Nandani, Taluka Shirol, Kolhapur – 416102. Pan: Aajts9836M Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh V Kankani – Advocate Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 22/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16 & A.Y.2018-19; Both Dated 24.05.2024. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By The Common Order.

Section 250Section 68Section 80P

know about the assessment orders only when recovery notices were issued. Assessee had filed reasons for delay with form No.35 to explain the Delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) has reproduced part of the reason in the order. However, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

Shri Adinath Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahpat Sanstha Maryadit Nandani, Kolhapur vs. ITO Ward 1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1347/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Section 250Section 68Section 80P

Celestial Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Ambalamugal vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Ernaluam

In the result, appeal is "Dismissed"

ITA 160/COCH/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhcelestial Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Aiswarya Towers Cr Building, Is Press Road Hoc Junction, Ambalamugal Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682302 [Pan: Aaccc6737F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250

provisions. In the case of T.Kishan [2012] 23 taxmann.com 383, Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad has held that in granting indulgence and condoning delay in filing appeal, it must be proved beyond shadow of doubt that assessee was diligent and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever. 7.11 In the case

Ram Avadhanulu Jonnavithula, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1645/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Navneeth N. Kini, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 10.04.2024 with a delay of 1809 days. 3. During the appellate proceedings the assessee submitted the reasons for delay in filing appeal which is as under:- “ "The intimation u/s 143(1) was received on 28-Mar-2019. The 30 days limitation for filing the appeal ... reasonable cause for delay in filling of appeal. 7. Considering the rival submissions, we note that the ld. FAA has not condoned the delay in filing appeal before him and observed that there is delay of 1809 days. The assessee has explained the reasons for Page

Maalddin, Haryana vs. Neac, Delhi

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

ITA 1622/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarmaalddin Ito Ward 2(4), House No.268, Gurgaon Tapkan (96), Vs. Tapkan, Mewat-122107 Haryana-122107 Pan:Bpbpm8995K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri I.P. Bansal, Adv. Shri Vivek Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Vishal Chechi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Amit Shukla, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/10/2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar,Jm: The Application For Condonation Of Delay Of 182 Days In Filing Appeal & The Appeal Of The Assessee Are Against Order Dated 09.08.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Gurgaon, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 06.01.2022 Of The Assessing Officer(Hereinafter Referred As Ld. A.O.) For Assessment Year 2018-19. Page1

ITA 1621/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Maalddin, Haryana vs. Neac, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarmaalddin Ito Ward 2(4), House No.268, Gurgaon Tapkan (96), Vs. Tapkan, Mewat-122107 Haryana-122107 Pan:Bpbpm8995K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri I.P. Bansal, Adv. Shri Vivek Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Vishal Chechi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Amit Shukla, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/10/2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar,Jm: The Application For Condonation Of Delay Of 182 Days In Filing Appeal & The Appeal Of The Assessee Are Against Order Dated 09.08.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Gurgaon, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 06.04.2021 Of The Assessing Officer(Hereinafter Referred As Ld. A.O.) For Assessment Year 2018-19. Page1

ITA 1620/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

suffering from heart trouble and was in hospital for undergoing angioplasty. Copies of treatment record have been filed. Explanation for Condonation of delay in filing appeal does not smack of malafides as nothing has been gained by the appellant/assessee. Therefore, the application for Condonation of delay in delay ... Condonation of delay of 300 days in filing appeal and appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld(CIT(A) allowed application for Condonation of delay in filing appeal and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 09/08/2023. 5. Learned Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that there is delay of 182 days

Maalddin, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward 2(4) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarmaalddin Ito Ward 2(4), House No.268, Gurgaon Tapkan (96), Vs. Tapkan, Mewat-122107 Haryana-122107 Pan:Bpbpm8995K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri I.P. Bansal, Adv. Shri Vivek Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Vishal Chechi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Amit Shukla, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/10/2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar,Jm: The Application For Condonation Of Delay Of 182 Days In Filing Appeal & The Appeal Of The Assessee Are Against Order Dated 24/07/2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Gurgaon, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 25.12.2019 Of The Assessing Officer(Hereinafter Referred As Ld. A.O.) For Assessment Year 2017-18. Page1

ITA 1619/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Maalddin, Haryana vs. NFAC, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarmaalddin Nfac, New Delhi House No.268, Tapkan (96), Vs. Tapkan, Mewat-122107 Haryana-122107 Pan:Bpbpm8995K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri I.P. Bansal, Adv. Shri Vivek Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Vishal Chechi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Amit Shukla, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/10/2024

ITA 4063/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Ima Pg India Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Nafac, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ima Pd India Pvt. Ltd., Nafac, Delhi. R-677, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc Vs. Thane Belapur Road, Rabale, Maharashtra-400701. Pan No. Aaacp 6442 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Krishnakumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Ramakrishna R. Lingsur

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43B

appeal against the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act appeal against the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act condonation for delay in filing appeal against said order might be condonation for delay in filing appeal against said or condonation for delay in filing appeal against said or liberally ... concerned, the As far as the issue of the condonation for delay is concerned, the assessee may file its explanation for the delay in filing appeal, assessee may file its explanation for the delay in filing appeal assessee may file its explanation for the delay in filing appeal which

Medavakkam Vattara Nadargalikkiya Sangam, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 22(1), Tambaram, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2190/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA &For Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

ITA 2189/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

condonation. 6.3. On the basis of the circumstances of the case. it is held that the appellant was not having"sufficient cause" for delay in filing appeal. The appeal filed by the appellant is held to be invalidand non-maintainable being out of time. The main grievance of the assessee

Medavakkam Vattara Nadargalikkiya Sangam, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 22(1), Tambaram, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA &For Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

ITA 2188/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Medavakkam Vattara Nadargalikkiya Sangam, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 22(1), Tambaram, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA &For Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

ITA 2187/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Medavakkam Vattara Nadargalikkiya Sangam, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 22(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA &For Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

ITA 2186/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Medavakkam Vattara Nadaragalikkiya Sangam, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 22(1), Tambaram, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA &For Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT