← 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

DCIT Circle 1(1), New Delhi vs. Acme Tele Power Ltd. (Now Known As Acme Cleantech Solution Ltd.), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1074/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Dcit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Circle-1(2) D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Addl.Cit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Range-1 D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs M/S. Acme Tele Power Ltd. Circle-1(1) [Now, Known As M/S. Acme New Delhi Cleantech Solutions Ltd.] C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

Revenue’s appeal] 39. The appeal filed by the Revenue is delayed by 2445 days and the reasons stated in the application of condonation of delay filed before us are as under:- 2. “In this connection, it is hereby stated that this office has received letter from CIT(DR), ITAT ... this year also. ITA No.3641/Del/2017 & Others Under these facts, we do not find any merit in the petition filed by the Revenue for condonation of delay and Revenue has failed to state reasonable cause for such an inordinate delay of 2445 days therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3641/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Dcit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Circle-1(2) D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Addl.Cit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Range-1 D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs M/S. Acme Tele Power Ltd. Circle-1(1) [Now, Known As M/S. Acme New Delhi Cleantech Solutions Ltd.] C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

Revenue’s appeal] 39. The appeal filed by the Revenue is delayed by 2445 days and the reasons stated in the application of condonation of delay filed before us are as under:- 2. “In this connection, it is hereby stated that this office has received letter from CIT(DR), ITAT ... this year also. ITA No.3641/Del/2017 & Others Under these facts, we do not find any merit in the petition filed by the Revenue for condonation of delay and Revenue has failed to state reasonable cause for such an inordinate delay of 2445 days therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4478/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Dcit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Circle-1(2) D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Addl.Cit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Range-1 D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs M/S. Acme Tele Power Ltd. Circle-1(1) [Now, Known As M/S. Acme New Delhi Cleantech Solutions Ltd.] C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

Revenue’s appeal] 39. The appeal filed by the Revenue is delayed by 2445 days and the reasons stated in the application of condonation of delay filed before us are as under:- 2. “In this connection, it is hereby stated that this office has received letter from CIT(DR), ITAT ... this year also. ITA No.3641/Del/2017 & Others Under these facts, we do not find any merit in the petition filed by the Revenue for condonation of delay and Revenue has failed to state reasonable cause for such an inordinate delay of 2445 days therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Kayamkulam Village Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd No 1596, Alappuzha vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 2, Alappuzha

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

ITA 814/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Kayamkulam Villege Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Perungala P.O., Alappuzha 690599 [Pan: Aadak5426G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer. Ward-2, Alappuzha ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Sabu C.S., Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025 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 14.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22. 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 2021-22 Was Filed On 31.03.2022 Disclosing Nil

For Appellant: Shri Sabu C.S., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80o

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 814 days. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay of 814 days and dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of delay. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal ... present appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the appellant had filed an application before the Pr. CIT seeking condonation of delay in filing the return of income. The application is pending disposal. It is further submitted that the CIT(A) ought not have refused to condone

Naippalli Chirayil Chandy Joseph, Alappuzha vs. ITO Ward 2, Alappuzha

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

ITA 748/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Naippalli Chirayil Chandy Joseph .......... Appellant Naippallichirayil House, Edathua, Alappuzha [Pan: Anspj6746P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri K. Balaji, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025 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 18.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Filed By The Appellant. Based On The Information That The Appellant Made Cash Deposits In Bank Account During The Previous Year Relevant To Ay 2015-16, Ao Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 07.04.2022 After Complying With The Procedures

For Appellant: Shri K. Balaji, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 114 days. The CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay and dismissed in limine on the grounds of delay. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal ... 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 114 days in filing the appeal before him. The appellant had filed explanation seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant

Maitri Foundation, Ahilyanagar vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1669/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1668 & 1669/Pun/2025 Maitri Foundation, Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Ward No.-7, Belapur Road, Shriampur, Dist. Ahilyanagar- 413709. Pan : Aaetm3524B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prasad S. Bhandari Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 29.06.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune Rejecting The Application For Registration In Form No.10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of Section 12A(1)(Ac) Of The Act Filed On 27.12.2022 & Denying The Application For Approval In Form No.10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Sub-Section (5) Of Section 80G Of The Act Filed On 27.12.2022. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals.

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

There is delay in filing of the present appeals. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeals within the prescribed time limit. After hearing ... condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeals. ITA No.1668/PUN/2025 : 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee filed its application for registration in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of Act on 27.12.2022. With a view to verify the genuineness

Maitri Foundation, Ahilyanagar vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1668/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1668 & 1669/Pun/2025 Maitri Foundation, Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Ward No.-7, Belapur Road, Shriampur, Dist. Ahilyanagar- 413709. Pan : Aaetm3524B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prasad S. Bhandari Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 29.06.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune Rejecting The Application For Registration In Form No.10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of Section 12A(1)(Ac) Of The Act Filed On 27.12.2022 & Denying The Application For Approval In Form No.10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Sub-Section (5) Of Section 80G Of The Act Filed On 27.12.2022. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals.

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

There is delay in filing of the present appeals. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeals within the prescribed time limit. After hearing ... condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeals. ITA No.1668/PUN/2025 : 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee filed its application for registration in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of Act on 27.12.2022. With a view to verify the genuineness

Touch Tone Teleservices, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

ITA 987/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 987/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Touch Tone Teleservices, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 3-6-550/4, 1St Floor, Ward-4(1), Street No.7, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aacft5196N (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Firm Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 27/02/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 27/12/2019. The Assessee Firm Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.AR
Section 114Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, that had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering