← 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

Dwarkadas Pragji Vandravan Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) - 1(2), Mumbai, Mumgai

ITA 3732/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

deduction of the aforesaid expenses. 3. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) belatedly. While the CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the above disallowance made by the Assessing Officer vide order, dated 25/08/2013. 4. Being aggrieved, the Appellant

B4S Solutions P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-13, New Del;Hi

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

ITA 3047/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble Vice-A N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate
Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 154

scope and authority of sec 143(1) of the Act. 3. Because the CIT (A) has arbitrarily rejected the explanation that the delay in filing appeal was due to pursuing the remedy u/s 154 of the Act and otherwise the appeal was filed immediately after the order

Rajeshbhai D. Dungarani (HUF), Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(2)(3), Surat

In the result, the substantial ground of appeal as framed by me is allowed

ITA 561/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Rajeshbhai D Dungarani (Huf), I.T.O., 15-A, Sundaram Park Society, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. Dabholi Road, Surat-395004 Surat. (Gujarat) Pan No. Aakhr 4970 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 5

14/08/2013, thus, there is a delay of 37 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay in filing appeal. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the ld. CIT(A) passed the order on 09/05/2023, however, the assessee ... month of August, 2023, immediately, filed the present appeal by engaging him. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but for the reasons beyond the control of assessee. The assessee is not going to be benefitted in filing appeal

Ram Dev Chandelwal, S/O Shri Heera Lal Chandelwal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Bundi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 585/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

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

Mohd. Shafi Naushahi, Nagpur vs. Commissioner of Inocme Tax -IV, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 129/NAG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.129/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Mohd. Shafi Naushahi, The Commissioner Of Plot No.194, Shahai Manzil, Vs Income Tax-Iv, Nagpur. Gumgaon Road, Dongaragaon, Nagpur. Pan: Adgpn2947L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22 /11/2023

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263

Aggrieved by the order under section 263, the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. Condonation of Delay : 3. There is a delay in filing appeal of 1833 days. Assessee filed condonation application along with an affidavit. The Paragraph “F” of the affidavit is reproduced as under: “F. That during

Everest Grande Commercial Premises Co-Op Society Limited, Mumbai vs. CPC ITO, 24 (1) (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2487/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & S Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2487/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Everest Grande Commercial बिधम/ Cpc/Ito-24(1)(1) 3Rd Floor, Piramal Premises Vs. Cts-46/34, Plot 3A Everest Chambers Lalbaugh, Grande Society, Mahakali Mumbai-400034. Caves Road, Andheri Kurla Road Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaae5455A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dinesh Kukreja Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Meshram (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2023 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 19.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Admitting The Same On Grounds Of Delay.

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh KukrejaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

then the delay caused for filing the appeal gets reduced to 1730 days. According to Ld. AR, thus it can be seen that delay in filing appeal was not intentional and on this score, no negligence can be attributed on the part of assessee. And it was submitted that ... delay of 2790 days, but after excluding Covid-19 period, the same will be reduced to 1730 days). The reasons for causing of delay (in filing appeal) was attributed to the omission on the part of official/Shri Shabbir Akolawala, who was entrusted the task of handling taxation issues. The omission

Hillway Sadhna Co Op Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 2675/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri K Shivram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Joginder Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80P(2)(d)

No.2785/Bang/2004 for the A.Y. 1993-94, the Tribunal condoned the delay of about 1331 days in filing the appeal wherein the plea of delay in filing appeal due to advice given by a new counsel was accepted as sufficient. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case ... aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Court found that the very liability of the assessee was non-existent and therefore condoned the delay in filing appeal. In condoning the delay in filing the appeals, the expression ‘sufficient cause’ should receive liberal construction and advancement of substantial justice is of prime importance

Nileshkumar Chhaganbhai Vasoya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(8), Surat

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

ITA 64/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat15 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Nileshkumar Chhaganbhai Vs. The Ito, Vasoya, Ward -3(2)(8), 186, Suvidha Row House, Near Surat. Yogi Chowk, Puna Simada Road, Surat – 395010. Pan : Amfpv9665F Appellant Respondednt

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 69

delay of two hundred forty-four (244) days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that the delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee has engaged a consultant for filing return of income who has given his own e-mail ... case on merit. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue, on the contention of delay in filing appeal, submits that the assessee has not explained the delay. The reason for not filing appeal is not plausible and reasonable. The assessee is habitual

Shyam Vilas Patil, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8, Vapi

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

ITA 642/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat14 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Shyam Vilas Patil, Vs. The Ito, B-201, Jivan Jyot Co-Op. Hsg Ward-8, Soc. Ltd., Silvassa Road, Nr- Vapi. Haria Parka, Dungra, Vapi -396191. Pan : Apxpp7431E Appellant Respondednt

Section 254(1)

case on merit. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue, on the contention of delay in filing appeal, submits that Bench may take appropriate view on considering the plea of ld AR for the assessee. On merit of the case

Bundelas Securitas and Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 60/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 59 & 60/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 Bundelas Securities & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. L-38, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 223 Pan : Aaccb6831H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

compliances and with all the other stakeholders resulting in delay in submission of appeal before the honourable Income Tax Appellate tribunal. That this delay in filing appeal before the honourable income tax appellate Tribunal is due to aforesaid bonafide and genuine reasons.” 7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative

Bundelas Securitas and Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 59/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 59 & 60/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 Bundelas Securities & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. L-38, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 223 Pan : Aaccb6831H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

compliances and with all the other stakeholders resulting in delay in submission of appeal before the honourable Income Tax Appellate tribunal. That this delay in filing appeal before the honourable income tax appellate Tribunal is due to aforesaid bonafide and genuine reasons.” 7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative

Shri Ravjibhai B Dhameliya, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Surat

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

ITA 124/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA and Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)

assessee, both have argued on the same line stating that the delay are attributable to Covid 19 pandemic disease; therefore these small delay in filing appeals by Revenue and appeals by Assessee, should be condoned. 3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We note that delay

ACIT, Circle-3(3), Surat vs. Shri Ravjibhai Becharbhai Dhameliya, Surat

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

ITA 122/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA and Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)

assessee, both have argued on the same line stating that the delay are attributable to Covid 19 pandemic disease; therefore these small delay in filing appeals by Revenue and appeals by Assessee, should be condoned. 3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We note that delay

DCIT, Circle-3(3), Surat vs. Shri Ravjibhai Becharbhai Dhameliya, Surat

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

ITA 304/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA and Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)

assessee, both have argued on the same line stating that the delay are attributable to Covid 19 pandemic disease; therefore these small delay in filing appeals by Revenue and appeals by Assessee, should be condoned. 3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We note that delay

Shri Ravjibhai Becharbhai Dhameliya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1(1), Surat

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

ITA 239/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA and Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)

assessee, both have argued on the same line stating that the delay are attributable to Covid 19 pandemic disease; therefore these small delay in filing appeals by Revenue and appeals by Assessee, should be condoned. 3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We note that delay

Gangeshwar Seva Mandal Charitable Trust, Surat vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 589/SRT/2023[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Surat03 Nov 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 12ASection 154Section 254(1)Section 80G

already furnished. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that there is sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. 3. On merit of the case, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the application of assessee under Section 12AB ... Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue has not objected the plea of ld. AR of the assessee about the condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal and would submits that bench may take its view as per law. Gangeshwar Seva Mandal Charitable Trust

Gangeshwar Seva Mandal Charitable Trust, Surat vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 588/SRT/2023[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Surat03 Nov 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 12ASection 154Section 254(1)Section 80G

already furnished. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that there is sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. 3. On merit of the case, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the application of assessee under Section 12AB ... Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue has not objected the plea of ld. AR of the assessee about the condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal and would submits that bench may take its view as per law. Gangeshwar Seva Mandal Charitable Trust

Dhanesh Jyotindra Kothari, Mumbai Suburban vs. Income Tax Office(It)-3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2952/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 2952 & 2951/Mum/2023 (A.Y: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dhanesh Jyotindra Vs. Ito (It) – 3(1)(1), Kothari,A-Wing, Flat No. Air India Bldg, 6, Mahavir Krupa, Nariman Point, Vallabh Baug Lane, Mumbai-400021. Extn. Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-4000077 Pan/Gir No. : Adapk9004H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Kirit.S.Sanghvi.Ar Respondent By : Shri. G.J.Ninawe. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 147 R.W.S 144C & U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri.Kirit.S.Sanghvi.ARFor Respondent: Shri. G.J.Ninawe. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

contents of the application found that there is a reasonable cause explained and there is no benefit is derived in causing delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A). Whereas the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy

Basant Sekhani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 585/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

condoned the delay, resultantly the appeal was not admitted and dismissed in limine. Similarly, there was a delay in filing appeal in penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 176 days. Similar delay was not condoned in appeal against the penalty order ... building. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee furnished medical certificate to the appellate commissioner. The assessee also prayed that delay in filing appeal was not malafide and due to bonafide reasons. The ld. CIT(A) instead of considering the case of assessee has sympathetically dismissed

Basant Sekhani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 584/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

condoned the delay, resultantly the appeal was not admitted and dismissed in limine. Similarly, there was a delay in filing appeal in penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 176 days. Similar delay was not condoned in appeal against the penalty order ... building. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee furnished medical certificate to the appellate commissioner. The assessee also prayed that delay in filing appeal was not malafide and due to bonafide reasons. The ld. CIT(A) instead of considering the case of assessee has sympathetically dismissed