← All Phrases

“condonation of delay”

AppealsSection 249Section 24912,312 judgments

The decision most relied on for condonation of delay is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on condonation of delay

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.

Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
2025 INSC 382 · 2025 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

Non-deliberate procedural delays caused by circumstances beyond control must be condoned in the interest of substantial justice, even if the delay is significant, such as over 1500 days.

Vedabhai v. Santaram
253 ITR 798 · 2002 · Supreme Court
262
citing judgments

When substantial justice and technical considerations are in conflict, substantial justice should be prioritized. Condoning delay requires a cautious approach without malafide or dilatory tactics, and 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.

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.

Judgments citing condonation of delay

Rameshbhai Popatbhai Dakhra Legal Heir of Popatbhai Virabhai Dakhra, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(3), Surat

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

ITA 170/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.170/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Physical Hearing) Rameshbhai Popatbhai Dakhra Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(3), बनाम/ Legal Heir Of Popatbhai Surat, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395 Vs. Virabhai Dakhra 001 Plot No.17,Ganesh Row House, Nr. Shyamdham Temple, Sarthana, Jakatnaka, Surat- 395 006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aknpd 3920 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 01/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

follow-up. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay was not deliberate and intentional. In the interest of justice, he requested to condone the delay. The Ld. Sr. DR for revenue did not raise objection to the condonation request of the assessee. 3.1 After hearing both the parties, we note ... other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of an non deliberate delay. 3.2 Hence, the request for condonation of delay is allowed and the appeal is admitted for hearing. However, to prevent such laxity in future, we direct the assessee to deposit a cost

The State Farming Corporation of Kerala Ltd, Kollam vs. ACIT, Kollam Circle, Kollam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 819/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 The State Farming Corporation Of Kerala Ltd. .......... Appellant P.B. No. 13, Vettithitta P.O., Punalur 689696 [Pan: Aaact8150F] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kollam ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Iype John, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 03.06.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Government Of Kerala Undertaking Engaged In Production Of Latex & Manufacturing Cenex Out Of It. Apart From Latex Production From Rubber Plantations, The Company Is Engaged In Production Of Cashes, Coconut, Pepper, Plantain, Etc. The Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Filed On 01.01.2018 Declaring Loss Of Rs. 1,02,61,730/-. Against

For Appellant: Shri Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 244A

find that there is a delay of 455 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The appellant had filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay, which is extracted as below: - “I, Sajeev J, aged 62 years, son of R.Janardanan Pillai, residing at Alelil, Charummoodu P.O., Mavelikkara, Alappuzha ... soon as the circumstances permitted especially on knowledge of the facts submitted above. 5. That I humbly request this Honourable Tribunal to condone the delay in the interest of justice and allow the Application. 6. That I undertake to comply with any conditions imposed by this Honourable Tribunal for condoning

Nooranad Service Cooperative Society Limited, Alappuzha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 785/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nooranad Service Co-Op. Society Ltd. .......... Appellant Padanilam P.O., Nooranad, Alappuzha 690529 [Pan: Aaban2292F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.01.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That That Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Not Filed By The Appellant Society. Based On The Information That The Appellant Had Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs. 12,28,000/- In The District Co-Operative Bank

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)

outset, I find that there was delay in filing the appeal by 572 days. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay stating that order of the CIT(A) was not communicated to the appellant either though e-mail or through physical service. The appellant further submitted that ... Consultant was the main reason for the delay in filing the appeal. I have carefully perused the averments made in the petition seeking condonation of delay. The appellant society simply attempts to shift the burden to the shoulders of the Tax Consultant. Keeping in view the decision

The Ezhumzttoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Pathanmthitta vs. ITO, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 778/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ezhumattoor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 7-392, Ezhumattoor P.O., Malappally Pathanamthitta 689586 [Pan: Aafat6575K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Assessee By: Smt. Pooja V.M., Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27.03.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 30.12.2020 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 25,120/- After Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Against The Said Return Of 2 Ezhumattoor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Assessment Unit Of Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 27.09.2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act At Total Income Of Rs. 57,08,630/-. While Doing So, The Ao Denied Deduction U/S. 80P In Respect Of Interest Income Of Rs. 56,83,510/- Placing Reliance On The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Apex Court In The Case Totgar’S Co-Operative Sale Society Ltd. V. Ito [2010] 322 Itr 283 (Sc).

For Appellant: Smt. Pooja V.M., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

outset, I find that there was delay in filing the appeal by 511 days. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of pending rectification appeal and there strong case on merits in favour of the appellant society ... have carefully perused the averments made in the petition seeking condonation of delay. The 3 Ezhumattoor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. petition is totally silent as to when the rectification application is pending for disposal. It is bereft of details such as when the rectification petition was filed and disposed

Shamsudeen Abdul Khadar, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kollam

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

ITA 768/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shamsudeen Abdul Khadar .......... Appellant Nusaifa Manzil, Chithara, Madathara Kottarakkara, Kollam 691541 [Pan: Arjpa0218Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kollam .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 15.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Appellant Had Not Filed The Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2017-18. Based On The Information That The Appellant Had Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs. 12,07,500/- During Ay 2017-18 In Bank Account Maintained With Kerala Grameen Bank, The Ao Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Therefore, The Ao

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

material available on record. The solitary issue that arises for my consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 50 days in filing the appeal before him. The appellant had filed 3 Shamsudeen Abdul Khadar explanation seeking condonation of delay on the ground ... absence of any evidence contrary to the averments made in the condonation petition before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated the matter on merits. Therefore, the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to condone

Ram Ratan Singh Pal, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 387/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Ram Ratan Singh Pal V. The Assessment Unit 5C/111, Girdhar Kunj Nfac Sector 5, Vrindavan Colony Telibagh, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ahqpp7018N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.01.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 15.01.2021, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.2,81,520/- Under The Head Income From Salary. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & A Refund Of Rs.2,50,510/- Was Created. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income Under Section 139(5) Of The Act On 25.02.2021, Declaring The Same Income Originally Returned, I.E., Rs.2,81,520/-. In The Revised Return Of Income, The Assessee Declared Income From Salary At Rs.2,81,520/- & Income From

For Appellant: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 270ASection 44A

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. She further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated Nil for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit and Medical Certificate/prescriptions, which was received by the Registry of this Office on 07.07.2025. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee ... objected to the delay being condoned. 5.0 In view of the prayer made by the Ld. A.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 6.0 The Ld. A.R. submitted before me that the NFAC has passed an order ex-parte

Manjeet Kaur Kamboj, Yamuna Nagar Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2, Yamuna Nagar Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 550/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumat & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 550/Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Manjit Kaur Kamboj, Ito Ward-2, Lotus Valley Public School, बनाम Yamuna Nagar, Sector – 18, Huda, Haryana Vs. Yamunanagar, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Abmpk5213G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) िनधा""रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Meenal Goyal, Ca & Sh. Abhinav Jain, Adv. राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश/Order Shri Laliet Kumar: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal, As Taken By The Assessee In Form 36, Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Ms. Meenal Goyal, CA and Sh. Abhinav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

Tribunal. 550-Chd-2025 Manjeet Kaur Kamboj, Yamunanagar 4 4. The Counsel of the Assessee has filed an Affidavit dated 03.8.2024 for condonation of delay which is reproduced as under:- 550-Chd-2025 Manjeet Kaur Kamboj, Yamunanagar 5 550-Chd-2025 Manjeet Kaur Kamboj, Yamunanagar 6 550-Chd-2025 Manjeet ... Kaur Kamboj, Yamunanagar 7 5. We have considered the detailed reasoning given in the affidavit and we are inclined to condone the delay. 6. The ld. DR did not have any objection for this condonation of delay. 7. The ld. AR had raised the following issues - (i) i.e. the land

Seikh Kamaluddin, Paschim Midnapur vs. ITO, Ward 38(2), Midnapur

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

ITA 1374/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1374/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Seikh Kamaluddin,………………….……...……Appellant Nekarbag Tatarpur, Chandrakona, Paschim Midnapure-721242, West Bengal [Pan:Btwpk5866J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-38(2), Midnapur, Amaravati, 1St Floor, Keranitola, Raja N.L. Khan Road, Paschim Medinipur-721101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Promit Majumdar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Addl. Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 21, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143Section 144

filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 16th June, 2025 before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 330 days mentioning that the delay occurred due to the fact that he is not very cognizant of the procedures of the law, duly ... days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and there was no deliberate lapse or negligence on his part. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within