“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

M/S. Blue Spot Equipment Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. TDS CPC, Mumbai

ITA 165/MUM/2022[2013-14 QUQRTER 3]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R

Section 200ASection 234E

denied merely on the ground of delay in seeking the relief. So we find sufficient cause to condone the delay. Hence, two years delay in filing appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are ordered to be registered and are being disposed of accordingly

Upal Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the asses

ITA 871/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Upal Developers Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of Market City Resources Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-8, Second Floor, R.R. Hosiery Bldg. Vs. Mumbai. Shree Laxmi Woolen Mills Estate, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacu 7953 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal (supra). The the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal (supra). The delay in filing appeal is according delay in filing appeal is accordingly condoned and parties were and parties were directed to argue the appeal on the appeal

Hemant Dungarshi Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 27(1) (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2094/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Learned Cit(A) Manually On 29.04.2016. The Said Appeal Was Dismissed By The First Appellate Authority, Vide His Order Dated 06-08-2018, On The Ground That The Appeal Was Not Filed In Electronic Mode. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Appeal Before Learned Cit(A) In Electronic Mode On 05.12.2018. Since There Was Delay Of More Than Two Years, The Learned Cit(A), Vide His Order Dated 16.09.2021, Dismissed The Appeal Filed In Electronic Mode Also Without Condoning The Delay. Hence The Assessee Has Preferred The Present Appeal Against The Above Said Order Dated 16.09.2021. Hemant Dungarshi Shah Huf

defect in filing the appeal before Learned CIT(A) originally. In these factual aspects, it cannot be said that there was delay in filing appeal and hence the question of condoning the delay shall not arise. Accordingly, we are of the view that the impugned order of Learned

Tata Communications (Uk) Limited, United Kingdom vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 555/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA

Section 271(1)(b)

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

Tata Communications (Uk) Limited, United Kingdom vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 554/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA

Section 271(1)(b)

M/S. Suraj Ganga Developers LLP, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 234/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudheendra Kumar S.K., DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 43BSection 80I

report in Form 10CCB, which was belatedly filed on 28.9.2019. Against this assessee went in appeal before Ld. CIT(A). There was a delay in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) at 342 days. The assessee explained the delay before Ld. CIT(A) as below:- "The delay of 333 days

Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the both the appeals are allowed

ITA 452/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

appeal within 60 days from 07.01.2022 i.e., on or before 06.03.2022. The appeal has however been filed only on 19.05.2022, resulting in delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. An affidavit has been filed by one of the partners of the assessee wherein it has been stated that both

Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the both the appeals are allowed

ITA 393/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 359/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale

Section 11(2)Section 143(1)

also and appeal number allocated for that year was NFAC/2014-15/10014558. Accordingly, the assessee was under the bonafide belief that the delay in filing appeals have been condoned. 4. Accordingly, during the course of appellate hearing, the assessee submitted arguments on merits only. However, the Ld CIT(A) again proceeded

Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 358/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale

Section 11(2)Section 143(1)

Kln Engineering Products Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 337/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranm/S. Kln Engineering Dcit, Circle - 4(3)(1) Products Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru F-56. Industrial Estate Vs. Rajajinagar Bengaluru 560044 Pan – Aaack6967D Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Sachin Mehta,M Ca Respondent By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.06.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Mehta,m CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale

Section 143(1)

cause for the delay. Accordingly he refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. I noticed that the delay in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A) was 51 days and in my view, it cannot be considered as inordinate delay. I notice that the assessee

Maker Towers A & B Co.Op. Hsg Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT WD 17(2) (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri B. V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri M. P. Ahuja (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

claim which Ld. CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated. Be that as it may, since there is reasonable cause for the delay in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the intimation u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act of the CPC, we condone the delay and set aside

Vasavi Hostel Trust, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 27/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Vasavi Hostel Trust, Dcit (Cpc), Vs. No.15, Vasavi Temple Street, Bengaluru. V. V. Puram, Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aaatv 1656 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 11(2)Section 143(1)

senior person and it took some time. Thereafter, it filed the appeal before Ld CIT(A) on 12.08.2019. Ld AR submitted that the delay in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A) was on account of reasonable cause. Accordingly, she prayed that the delay may be condoned. In this regard ... submitted that the assessee has got good case on merits also. Accordingly, she prayed that justice may be rendered by condoning the delay in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A). Page 3 of 5 3. The Ld DR, on the contrary, strongly opposed the prayer made

M/S. Sree Minerals, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 719/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)

condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him on the reason that assessee not adduced any credible reason for delay in filing appeal before him. He also decided the appeal on merit and dismissed the issue by observing that assessee has failed to establish that the windmill was commissioned

Cicilia Pinto, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 622/BANG/2021[2014-15(26Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Vanaja, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 156Section 200Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234ESection 234E(3)Section 243E(3)Section 250Section 3

before Ld. CIT(A) and the appeal was not admitted by him, hence there is no question of deciding appeal on merit unless delay in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) has been duly condoned by the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available

Cicilia Pinto, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 621/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Vanaja, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 156Section 200Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234ESection 234E(3)Section 243E(3)Section 250Section 3

Aneeka Universal Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-9, Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7115/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta

Section 143(3)Section 254(2)Section 263Section 57

delay and the pleadings taken by the assessee in its miscellaneous application, we find that although, the Tribunal has accepted the fact that delay in filing appeal was due to wrong advice of counsel, but proceeded to dismiss the appeal on the sole basis of finding that

M/S. Vth Source Components Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessees is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2620/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Sudheendranath, ARFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

appeals and those details have been set out in the order of CIT(A). 6. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing appeals stating that the delay is nothing but negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee which could have been avoided by the exercise ... identical facts noticing that there was no legal remedy prior to 1.6.2015 against an intimation u/s.200A of the Act, the Hyderabad Bench condoned delay in filing appeal before CIT(A). 12. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind that technicalities should not stand

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1111/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Commissioner Of Complex, Income Tax, K H Road, Circle – 1 [1][2], Shanti Nagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027. Pan: Aaacb4881D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/02/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & The Facts & Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Refusing To Admit The Appeal Of The Appellant On The Grounds That Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Cannot Be Condoned On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate

Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

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 CIT v. ISRO Satellite Centre, ITA 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. 18. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles, we shall consider the claim of the assessee in the present case. Admittedly the advice was given

Shri Muniyappa Narashimaiah, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 26/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year :2013-14 Shri. Muniyappa Narashimaiah, Vs. Ito, No.120/1, Hessarghatta Main Road, Ward – 6(2)(3), Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, T Dasarahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 057. Pan : Abmpn 5245 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Mahesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54B

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 CIT v. ISRO Satellite Centre, ITA 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. We are therefore inclined to Page 7 of 9 condone the delay in filing the appeal and we condone the delay in filing the appeal