“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

Bank of India, Itwari, Nagpur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (TDS) Range-1, Nagpur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3/NAG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pratik Sadrani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 246A(1)(c)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 271C

impugned orders did not pass through its merits, therefore the contentions of appellant is pointless here. It is argued that, there was inordinate delay in filing appeals against the imposition of penalty u/s 271C of the Act before Ld. NFAC and appellant did fail to establish any reasonable cause beyond

Centenary Baptist Church, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer- Exemptions 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 118/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.AR

Section 140Section 147Section 253

uploaded.). 4. (EF) Relevant order of assessment / reassessment / penalty / other proceedings not uploaded. 5. (EF) petition and / or affidavit for condoning the delay in filing appeal is not uploaded. 6. (EF) Grounds of appeal before CIT(A) not uploaded. 7. (EF) Statement of Facts before CIT(A) not uploaded

Centenary Baptist Church, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 117/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.AR

Section 140Section 147Section 253

Nidhi Garg, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 44 (7), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(2)Section 6

finding of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that "the appellant has chosen not to file any reasons in respect of the delay in filing appeal. In my opinion, the appellant cannot sleep over the filing of the appeal within the statutory time limit. The appellant in this case

Vijayanand Charitable Trust, Karad vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-1(1), Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 928/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 154Section 250(6)

grounds in the instant appeal : 2 I.T.A.No. 928/PUN./2023 1. “The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning delay in filing appeal without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in facts & in Law in confirming the action

Wisteria Advertisement Private Limited, H vs. ITO Ward -2(3), Faridabad, C. R. Building

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3278/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3278/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

assessee came to know that appeal was not filed during the covid pandemic but immediately assessee filed appeal after engaging the counsel. Hence delay in filing appeal was due to following: a) New E filing system. b) Illness of the AR. I.T.A.No.3278/Del/2023 c) Covid pandemic

Sohanlalji Ashok Seervi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 285/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessmentyear:2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

before us with a delay of 52 days. During the course of hearing, the ld. A.R. of the assessee stating the reasons for delay in filing appeal vide its affidavit dated 15.03.2024 along with a petition to condone the delay explaining the reason that the assessee had visited the office

Anoopkumar Devidas Raimalani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Cir-18(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1653/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(2)

view that it is not necessary in all cases to give evidence regarding the delay in filing appeals. The affidavits are documents of evidence. On the basis of the affidavits, if the Court is satisfied that sufficient explanation has been given for condoning delay, then the affidavit can be accepted

Microtek Balaji Powertronics Private Limited (Formerly Known As Balaji Powertronics), New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 42(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2208/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Aabgina Chishti, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

order at the assessment order. One of the foremost ground relates to summary dismissal of appeal by the CIT(A) on account of delay in filing appeal before him. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay

M/S. Abhinav Enterprises, Indore vs. PCIT-2, Indore

ITA 339/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Abhinav Enterprises, Pr. Commissioner Of 85, Income-Tax-2, Ramchandra Nagar Extn., Indore. बनाम/ Aerodrum Road, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan : Aanfa6300Q Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263

present appeal is filed by assessee/appellant on 05.09.2023 impugning the revision-order passed by PCIT on 14.08.2019. Thus, prima facie there appears a delay in filing appeal. However, in Form No. 36, the assessee has mentioned ‘date of service’ of impugned order as 01.09.2023 in Column No. 3(c). Further

Sds Metals (I) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 99/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Sds Metals (I) Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Hyderabad. Ward –3(1), C/O. P. Murali & Co., Hyderabad. Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda, Telangana – 500082. Pan : Aascs1826P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Krishna, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B. Yadagiri, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 07.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.03.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2017-18 Arises From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.18.09.2023 Invoking Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Krishna, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Yadagiri, Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

portal due to which the order could not be downloaded and it could only be downloaded on ()1.01.2024, which is reasonable cause for delay in filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the AO has passed the order without

M/S Priyanka International Prop, Kishor Chugh., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 28(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3761/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3761/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Priyanka International बिधम/ Ito, Ward-28(2)(1) Flat No. 402, Plot No. 402, 3Rd Floor, Tower No. 6, Vs. Pleasant View, Sector-14, Vashi Railway Station Vashi Navi Mumbai- Commercial Complex, 400705. Vashi, Navi Mumbai- 400703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Actpc6423G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Roshan Ochani Revenue By: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 31.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is An Exparte Order Because Assessee Didn’T Respond To His Two Notices Issued On 02.11.2022 & 18.11.2022. 3. The Ld. Ar Also Brought To Our Notice That The Appeal Is Time Barred & Assessee Had Filed Condonation Application For Condoning Two Hundred (200) Days Delay In Filing The Appeal Before This Tribunal; & That The Assessee Had Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Facts Which Led To The Delay Caused In Filing Of Appeal. From The Content Of The Affidavit, We Note That The Assessee Is A Proprietor Of M/S. Priyanka International & Is A Senior Citizen; & Had Entrusted His Case To Shri V. N. Ahirekar & Co. (Mr. Hemant Shelar) To Appear Before The Ao

For Appellant: Shri Roshan OchaniFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)

Section 250(6)

since the assessee was in the dark about appellate proceedings happening before the Ld. CIT(A), we are inclined to condone the delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal and proceed to hear the appeal. 5. Since it has been brought to our notice that the impugned order

Nirwan Monetary Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3745/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Maheshwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Arunkumar, D.R

Section 143(3)

been passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC ex-parte; that the appeal against the same was filed on January 20, 2018; that delay in filing appeals was neither intentional nor willful. 3. However, on the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue opposed the application for condonation

Nirwan Monetary Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3744/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Maheshwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Arunkumar, D.R

Section 143(3)

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 389/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

busy in handing internal and revenue audit objection. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstance, it is humbly submitted that the delay in filing appeal is bonafide and not intentional and therefore it is humbly requested to kindly admit the same in the interest of substantive justice

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 388/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 386/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

The ACIT(E), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 379/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 12ASection 22Section 271(1)(c)

Sugandh Sahil Gupta, Bhavnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 1050/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1050/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sugandh Sahil Gupta The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ D-145/146, Ramnagar Ward - 1(5), Bhavnagar Vs. Kaliyabid, Bhavnagar, Gujarat - 364001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afgpl1612Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri P. B. Parmar, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C S Sharma, Sr. Dr 21/02/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024 O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.09.2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Arising Out Of The Order Dated 23.12.2019 Passed By The Ito, Ward - 1(5), Bhavnagar, Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Appeal Is Time Barred By 19 Days. An Application Alongwith Affidavit Explaining Such Delay Has Also Been Filed By The Appellant. The Contents Whereof Is As Follows:

For Respondent: Shri C S Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

No.36 and forwarded the same for signature. Shortly thereafter, the present appeal came to be filed. In the mean-time, there occurred some delay in filing appeal. 2. Under the circumstances stated above, the delay in filing the appeal is on account of reasons stated hereinabove. Hence, it is prayed

Sh. Gagan Suri, Panchkula vs. ACIT, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed in terms of above directions

ITA 311/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 27Section 28Section 68

following revised grounds of appeal: 1. “That Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, ('Ld. CIT') has grossly erred in law in refusing to condone delay in filing appeal by concluding that no sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal has been established by the assessee. Conclusion drawn by the Learned Commissioner