← 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

Sri. Sumeru Housing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1471/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Nagarajan, Director of the CompanyFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

adjudicating the same as the delay in filing the Appeal is only due to the negligence & carelessness of the assessee and accordingly the delay in filing Appeal shall not be condoned. Further the ld. DR vehemently submitted that even before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee company filed the appeal

Arya Vysya Sangha, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hubli

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

ITA 1270/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)

therefore it got delayed. The FAA has noted that the appellant was unable to demonstrate sufficient cause or other hardships for the delay in filing appeal. Accordingly the delay was not condoned and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT ... above observations, following the above judgments, in our considered opinion, there exists sufficient cause in the reasons stated by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals and we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) is directed to decide the appeal afresh

Arya Vysya Sangha, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hubli

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

ITA 1269/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)

therefore it got delayed. The FAA has noted that the appellant was unable to demonstrate sufficient cause or other hardships for the delay in filing appeal. Accordingly the delay was not condoned and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT ... above observations, following the above judgments, in our considered opinion, there exists sufficient cause in the reasons stated by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals and we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) is directed to decide the appeal afresh

Welcome Traders, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1264/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 249(3)Section 37

above observations, following the above judgments, in our considered opinion, there exists sufficient cause in the reasons stated by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals and we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) is directed to decide the appeal afresh

Atmaram Baburao Jadhav, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4004/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. DR)
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 54Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

order and the notices to its Authorised Representative for taking necessary action including filing of an appeal. 5.We have to state that the delay in filing appeal was beyond the control of the assessee and due to unavoidable circumstances and no malafide was intended by the assessee. 6.We bring your

Rakesh Rawat, Lucknow vs. ITO-4(1), Lucknow

ITA 384/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 383 & 384/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rakesh Rawat C/O Saurabh Gupta, 50 Narain Das Building, Flat No. 9, Narhi, Lucknow Up-226001 Pan: Bcbpr4851G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Saurabh Gupta [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Neil Jain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 69

course, with legal parameters (Emphasis supplied) 10. In the absence of any application/petition and affidavit accompanying corroborative & independent evidence that such inordinate delay in filing appeal before Ld. NFAC were occurred for a sufficient cause, it is much less possible for quasi-judicial authority to turn-a-blind

Rakesh Rawat, Lucknow vs. ITO-4(1), Lucknow

ITA 383/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 383 & 384/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rakesh Rawat C/O Saurabh Gupta, 50 Narain Das Building, Flat No. 9, Narhi, Lucknow Up-226001 Pan: Bcbpr4851G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Saurabh Gupta [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Neil Jain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 69

course, with legal parameters (Emphasis supplied) 10. In the absence of any application/petition and affidavit accompanying corroborative & independent evidence that such inordinate delay in filing appeal before Ld. NFAC were occurred for a sufficient cause, it is much less possible for quasi-judicial authority to turn-a-blind

Amarabhai Ramjibhai Patel, Banaskantha vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Palanpur

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

ITA 234/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

intricacies of law, could not file the appeal before the CIT(A) within the stipulated time. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A) may be condoned. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has filed the additional evidences before the Tribunal

Purnima Shetty, United Arab Emirates vs. Income-Tax Officer - 26(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3435/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumr Chauhan

Section 144Section 147

raising following grounds:- “Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law: Dismissible of application for condonation of delay in filing appeal 2 Purnima Shetty 1. The Comm. of Income-tax (Appeals)-58, Mumbai (CIT(A)] erred in not condoning delay of about 25 months in filing

Mithilesh Kumar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1019/PUN/2024[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1019/Pun/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Mithilesh Kumar, V The Income Tax Officer, S/O.Jagdish Singh, S Ward-4(1), Pune. Village Samaria, Post-Mujan, Polilce Station-Mohniya, Dist-Kaimur(Bhabhua), Bihar – 821109. Pan: Aqupk5114H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Mr. Snehal Sukhadia, Chartered Accountant – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/09/2024

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 69

Income Tax Practitioner) was looking after assessee’s Income Tax Matters. He had never informed assessee about the assessment proceedings. Therefore, there was delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The delay was not intentional. Ld.AR pleaded that CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and decided the case

Gurindersingh Indrajeetsingh Nayyar, Nagpur vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle-2, Nagpur

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

ITA 61/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 56(2)(vii)

Nayyar ITA no.61/Nag./2024 3. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting request for condonation of delay in filing appeal without issuing any show cause notice providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. The Assessee craves to add, alter, vary, omit

Ramita Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Churchgate

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 3591/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal: A.Y : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 69A

passed by Ld CIT(A) and the above mentioned events resulted in a delay of 1167 days. Accordingly, it was submitted that the delay in filing appeal was not intentional and accordingly prayed that the delay may be condoned. The Ld A.R, during the course of hearing, also explained

The Safearth Foundation, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 756/JPR/2024[NOT APPLICABLE ]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Sept 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 12A

intentional. It is settled position of law that where the delay was bonafide and there is no malafide or intentional delay for delay in filing appeal the delay must be condone by the appellate authority specially when it is necessary for rendering the substantial justice to the assessee. The following

Vil Limited, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commisioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow.

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

ITA 91/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Income Tax, the hon'ble Apex Court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the concerned appeal pronouncing the principles behind condoning the delay in filing appeals before the courts by applying section 5 of the limitation act, 1963. The hon'ble Apex Court is of the view that ... justice. Thus, the condonation of delay is not automatic but is based upon on the facts of the case. Courts while condoning delay in filing appeals have power to Examine the case and after ascertaining the facts, if delay was due to "sufficient cause" may condone the delay. I.T.A. Nos.88

Vil Limited, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

ITA 90/LKW/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Income Tax, the hon'ble Apex Court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the concerned appeal pronouncing the principles behind condoning the delay in filing appeals before the courts by applying section 5 of the limitation act, 1963. The hon'ble Apex Court is of the view that ... justice. Thus, the condonation of delay is not automatic but is based upon on the facts of the case. Courts while condoning delay in filing appeals have power to Examine the case and after ascertaining the facts, if delay was due to "sufficient cause" may condone the delay. I.T.A. Nos.88

Vil Limited, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

ITA 88/LKW/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Income Tax, the hon'ble Apex Court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the concerned appeal pronouncing the principles behind condoning the delay in filing appeals before the courts by applying section 5 of the limitation act, 1963. The hon'ble Apex Court is of the view that ... justice. Thus, the condonation of delay is not automatic but is based upon on the facts of the case. Courts while condoning delay in filing appeals have power to Examine the case and after ascertaining the facts, if delay was due to "sufficient cause" may condone the delay. I.T.A. Nos.88

B M Manjunatha Gupta, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Shivamogga

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

ITA 1276/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sri Joseph Varghese, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 133ASection 250Section 271Section 274

that if the delay in filing the appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) of about 270 days as well as delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal by 96 days are not condoned the Assessee would be put to great hardship and irreparable injury ... days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The application for condonation of delay is also filed praying to condone the delay in filing appeal about 96 days. On going through the affidavit the assessee has sworn stating that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)-11, Bangalore

Sh. Jagtar Singh, Alwar vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Alwar

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

ITA 994/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 24Section 249(3)Section 24BSection 80C

party. 4.6 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 invalid and non- maintainable being out of time. For statistical purposes, the appeal

Xplorer Consultancy Services Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-27(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1374/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Xplorer Consultancy Vs. Dcit Services Private Limited Circle – 27 (2) Plot No.3, First Floor, Delhi Sarhaul Sector-18, Gurgaon Pan No. Aaacx0611M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Rano Jain, Advocate Ms. Mansi Jain,Ca Respondent By Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/09/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)

application of condonation. He has also filed the additional ground for condonation of the delay. Grounds taken by the assessee are sufficient delay in filing appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing on merit, 3. Aggrieved by the order of the lower authorities, the assessee is in appeal

Sujatabai Shesherao Bansode, Latur vs. ITO, Ward 4, Latur

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

ITA 950/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.950/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sujatabai Shesherao Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Latur. Bansode, Bhim Nagar Atp & Tq Ahmedpur, Latur- 413515. Pan : Aplpb6172Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] On The Facts & In The Circumstances The Learned Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Appeal On The Ground That The Reasons For Delay Are Not Found To Be Satisfactory. 2] The Learned Cit(A) Has & On Facts In Not Appreciating That The Reasons For Delay Were Beyond The Control Of The Appellant & Were Genuine For Which The Delay Ought To Have Be Condoned & Appeal Ought To Have Decided On Merits.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 96

facts and in the circumstances The Learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay in filing appeal on the ground that the reasons for delay are not found to be satisfactory. 2] The learned CIT(A) has and on facts in not appreciating