← 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

D, N, Vikraman, Tuticorin vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Madurai

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

ITA 250/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 250/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. T.M. Sugunthamala, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

before Courts and Tribunals and thus, considering facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of natural justice, we condone delay in filing appeal filed by the assessee. 5. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals

Classic Clearing & Forwarding Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1586/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1586/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2017-18) Classic Clearing & Forwarding Private Limited. Room No.4, 1St Floor, Khaitan Chamber, 143/145, Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacc-2274-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac, Delhi. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ravinder Sindhu सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A) Dated 20/04/2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Himanshu Gandhi Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That The Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of Assessee On The Ground Of Limitation Alone. Narrating Sequence Of Events, The Ld. Authorized Representative Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu
Section 143(1)Section 154

rectification application and availing other remedies the delay of 18 months occurred. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee contended that that some delay in filing appeal is also attributable to COVID-19 pandemic. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the total period of delay included period

Camoron Finance & Investments, Mumbai-400057 vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Mum, Mumbai-400051

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1176/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Camoron Finance & Vs. The Acit, Circle 17(1) Investments, 139-140B, Room No. 117, 1 St Floor, Crossing Of Sahar Road Kautilya Bhavan & Western Express Bandra Kurla Complex, Highway, Ville Parle (E), Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400057 Mumbai - 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafc5210A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Jeshaan Jain &For Respondent: Love Kumar
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154

case and law, the Commissioner of Income-tax NFAC ("CIT (A)") erred in dismissing the appeal in limini on the ground that delay in filing appeal cannot be condoned. ITA No.1176/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 2 M/s Camoron Finance & investment Vs. The ACIT, Circle 17(1) 2. The Appellant therefore prays

Income Tax Officer, Ncw-8(2), Chennai vs. Shri Sivanantham, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for

ITA 984/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

before Courts and Tribunals and thus, considering facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of natural justice, we condone delay in filing appeal filed by the Revenue . 5. Brief facts of the case are that as per information available with the Department, the assessee has made

M/S Jaico Automobile Engineering Company Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 125/BANG/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

delay in filing this appeal before this Tribunal. However, we noticed from the order of CIT(A) that there was a delay in filing appeal before CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal and dismissed in limine and he has not assigned any reasons

Eaton Power Quality Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. DCIT, Pondicherry

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 567/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.567/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Eaton Power Quality Pvt Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 2, E.V.R Street, Sedarapet, Tax, Puducherry-605 111. Circle-1, Puducherry. Pan: Aaacc 6943R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1689/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Eaton Power Quality Pvt Circle-1, Ltd. Puducherry-605 003. 2, E.V.R Street, Sedarapet, Puducherry-605 111. Pan: Aaacc 6943R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CITFor Respondent: 27.07.2022
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

case were not traceable mainly due to shifting of office from main building to rented building which caused delay of 69 days. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor willful, but for the unavoidable reasons, therefore, delay may be condoned in the interest of justice. 3. Having heard

DCIT, Pondicherry vs. Eaton Power Quality P. Ltd., Pondicherry

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1689/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.567/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Eaton Power Quality Pvt Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 2, E.V.R Street, Sedarapet, Tax, Puducherry-605 111. Circle-1, Puducherry. Pan: Aaacc 6943R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1689/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Eaton Power Quality Pvt Circle-1, Ltd. Puducherry-605 003. 2, E.V.R Street, Sedarapet, Puducherry-605 111. Pan: Aaacc 6943R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CITFor Respondent: 27.07.2022
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

case were not traceable mainly due to shifting of office from main building to rented building which caused delay of 69 days. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor willful, but for the unavoidable reasons, therefore, delay may be condoned in the interest of justice. 3. Having heard

Divya Raghavan Vijayan, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS) WD 1, Thane

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1772/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

quarters before learned CIT(A) are only technical delays, which deserved to be condoned. Accordingly, we direct Ld CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing appeals before him for the remaining two quarters in both the years. 8. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has granted relief

Divya Raghavan Vijayan, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS) WD 1, Thane

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1771/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

quarters before learned CIT(A) are only technical delays, which deserved to be condoned. Accordingly, we direct Ld CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing appeals before him for the remaining two quarters in both the years. 8. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has granted relief

Mohammed Fasihuddin, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 16(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 958/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mohammed Fasihuddin, Income Tax Officer-16(1)(3), 104, L2C, Oakland Park, Yamuna Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nagar, Lokhandwala Complex, Vs. Churchgate, Andheri West, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaapf 1795 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mrs. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/09/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 251

Departmental Representative (DR) and perused the material on Departmental Representative (DR) and perused the material on record on the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeal. record on the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeal. record on the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeal

Jagat Prakash Co-Op.Hsg.Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1789/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

admit both the appeals for hearing. 4. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay in filing appeals before him for both the years under consideration. We also notice that the assessee did not appear before Ld CIT(A) and hence ... justice, the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to present its case properly before Ld CIT(A) with regard to the delay in filing appeals before him as well as with regard to the additions made by the AO. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed

Jagat Prakash Co-Op Hsg. Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1788/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

admit both the appeals for hearing. 4. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay in filing appeals before him for both the years under consideration. We also notice that the assessee did not appear before Ld CIT(A) and hence ... justice, the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to present its case properly before Ld CIT(A) with regard to the delay in filing appeals before him as well as with regard to the additions made by the AO. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed

M/S. Hassan Power Supply Company Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 500/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate/Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

Tribunal condoned the delay of about 1331 days in filing the Page 5 of 6 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 of C1T v. ISRO Satellite ... 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. 14. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles, we shall consider the claim of the assessee in the present case. Admittedly the advice was given

Ace Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CPC, Bangalore, ITO WD- 1(1), Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1962/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Kavitha Rajagopal () - A.Y. 2017-18 - A.Y. 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

specified under the relevant Acts, but before the due date for filing of return of income under section 139(1). There was a delay in filing appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) which is categorically 349 days for A.Y. 2018-19 and 619 days for A.Y. 2017-18. The Ld.CIT

Ace Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC Bangalore & ITO WD1(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1961/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Kavitha Rajagopal () - A.Y. 2017-18 - A.Y. 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

specified under the relevant Acts, but before the due date for filing of return of income under section 139(1). There was a delay in filing appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) which is categorically 349 days for A.Y. 2018-19 and 619 days for A.Y. 2017-18. The Ld.CIT

M/S. Bhoolakshmi Estates Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 499/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Bhoolakshmi Estates Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. No.1, Grant Road, Cunningham Road, Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 001. Central Circle – 2(1), Pan : Aaacb 8624N Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(OSD)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

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 of C1T v. ISRO Satellite Centre. 1TA No. 532/2008 ... 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. 14. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles, we shall consider the claim of the assessee in the present case. Admittedly the advice was given

M/S. Kanna Investments Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 490/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Kanna Investments Ltd., Dcit, Vs. No.17, Sankey Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Bengaluru – 560 020. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaack 8373 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

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 of C1T v. ISRO Satellite Centre. 1TA No. 532/2008 ... 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. 14. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles, we shall consider the claim of the assessee in the present case. Admittedly the advice was given

M/S. L K Trust, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 409/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Suresh Rao, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(1)

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

Indian Overseas Bank (Mah) Employees Co Op Credit Society Limited, Fort vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 27/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

assessee has filed appeal manually in time. We find that the reasons mentioned are bonafide and it amounts to sufficient cause for the delay in filing appeal electronically before the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, we condone the delay and restore the appeal to the file

Indian Overseas Bank (Mah) Employees Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Fort vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 26/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

assessee has filed appeal manually in time. We find that the reasons mentioned are bonafide and it amounts to sufficient cause for the delay in filing appeal electronically before the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, we condone the delay and restore the appeal to the file