“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

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3385/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Ms. Padmavathy S & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Rama, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami

Section 147Section 249(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

order of the Ld.CIT(A) and pleaded for the dismissal of these appeals as there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing appeals as per section 249(2) of the act. 7. We have heard the rival submission and perused the records. It is well settled

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3384/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Ms. Padmavathy S & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Rama, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami

Section 147Section 249(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3383/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Ms. Padmavathy S & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Rama, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami

Section 147Section 249(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

Mr. Parasmal Jain, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3304/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami

find that the appellant has been able to put forth “sufficient cause” for the delay in filing both appeals before ITAT. Accordingly, the delay in filing appeals before this ITAT is hereby condoned. We admit both the appeals for adjudication. We further find that the ld.CIT(A) has decided

Mr. Parasmal Jain, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3303/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami

Mr. Balu Sinnappa Waghmode, Vatfali Nandiwale Vasti vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Solapur

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Dismissed

ITA 2804/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2804/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Aakash Parakh

Section 147Section 148Section 250

certain clerical mistakes in Form No.36 and therefore revised Form No.36 has been placed before this Tribunal. He also submitted that there was delay in filing appeal before ld.CIT(A) but inspite of having filed all the documents ld.CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal treating it as defective

Nirmala Sunil Nawale, Karegaon, Tal Shirur, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(1), Pune, Bodhi Towers, Gultekadi

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

ITA 2946/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2946/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vs Ito, Ward Nirmala Sunil Nawale, Kk Nag Ltd, Anand Patil 13(1), Pune 86 Midc, Ranjangaon, Shirur Pune-412220 Maharashtra Pan-Almpn3657K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vishwajit Shinde

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

FOLLOWED THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND REJECTED THE APPEAL AT LIMINE (AT THE THRESHOLD) BY REJECTING THE REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE HIM. 2) THE HON, CIT (A) DISMISSED THE CASE AFTER ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S 250 FOR MAKING SUBMISSIONS ON THE MERITS, HENCE

Hirawat Foundations, Chennai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Chennai

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

ITA 3166/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3166/Chny/2025

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT

Section 253(3)Section 80G

advised that an appeal shall be filed before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal along with a petition to condone the delay in filing appeal. The appeal was then drafted by the office of Shri.T.Banusekar, Advocate and the same was filed on 07.11.2025 with a delay of 160 days

Shiwaji Pd. Jaiswal, Guwahati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Guwahati

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

ITA 47/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) explaining the reason for delay in filing the appeal of 1862 days delay which is as under: "Dear Sir, Sub: Prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal for the assessment year 2018-19 against the Assessment Order issued U/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 43B

reason for delay in filing the appeal of 1862 days delay which is as under: “Dear Sir, Sub: Prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal for the assessment year 2018-19 against the Assessment Order issued U/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. PAN: ASEPS6242E Most respectfully ... wise which are reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the delay in filing appeal before him for 1862 days delay is excessive and unexplained to a satisfactory degree and relying on the judgment of Collector, Land Acquisition

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Essar Power Gujarat Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4353/MUM/2025[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 147Section 254

find that delay in fling CO was not With CO No. 246 & 247 /Mum/2025 Essar Power Gujarat Ltd intentional and deliberate. Hence, delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now adverting to merits of the case. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Essar Power Gujarat Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4352/MUM/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 147Section 254

Radhakishan, Khategaon, Dewas vs. ITO-2, Dewas

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 678/IND/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246A

CLOPR1955C Radhakishan ITA No. 678/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2010-11 To, The Hon'ble Members, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore COP cep Sub: Application for condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – A.Υ. 2010-11 - Reg. Hon'ble Sir, The Appellant respectfully submits

Kalpana Narware, Betul vs. Income Tax Officer, Betul

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 202/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

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

Section 144Section 253

before CIT(A) and although the assessee submitted before CIT(A) that she was misguided by her counsel and hence there was a delay in filing appeal but the CIT(A) did not consider assessee's submission judiciously and dismissed assessee's appeal on the ground of time-barred

Rajat Rajendraprasad Rastogi, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (Intl. Taxn.), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1783/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R

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

given was not allowed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the appellants case, considering the reasonable cause and legal position, the delay in filing appeal ought to have been condoned and appeal having I.T.A No. 1783/Ahd/2025 Rajat Rajendraprasad Rastogi, A.Y. 2019-20 meritorious ground in the appeal, the same

Manoj Dwivedi, Lucknow vs. ITO-3(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 619/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President), SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)

inaction, negligence or laches." 2.7. In the present case, after analysing the fact and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the delay in filing appeal by the appellant is purely an act of negligence or a deliberate overlooking. Hence an inordinate delay of 1426 days which cannot

Matsyodari Shikshan Sansthas Ankushrao Tope Junior College, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Aurangabad

ITA 880/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C N ChobeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT

Section 200ASection 234E

very elementary and well understood that courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in dealing with the applications for condonation of the delay in filing appeals and rather follow a pragmatic line to advance substantial justice. 14. It may also be important to point out that though ... 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

Matsyodari Shikshan Sansthas Ankushrao Tope Junior College, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Aurangabad

ITA 879/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C N ChobeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT

Section 200ASection 234E

Matsyodari Shikshan Sansthas Ankushrao Tope College, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Aurangabad

ITA 878/PUN/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C N ChobeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT

Section 200ASection 234E

Matsyodari Shikshan Sansthas Ankushrao Tope College, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Aurangabad

ITA 877/PUN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C N ChobeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT

Section 200ASection 234E

Balkan Chemicals Private Limited, Thane vs. ITO 1(1) Kalyan, Mohan Plaza

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 6504/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

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

Section 254(1)

Form-36 has mentioned the date of communication as of 26.09.2025. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that neither there was a delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) nor before the Tribunal. The ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merit. The assessing officer also ... other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue submits that there was delay that is inordinate delay in filing appeal before First Appellate Authority as well as delay before Tribunal. The assessee has not explained the delay, thus, delay may not be condoned and appeal