← 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

Mrs. Surekha Sharma, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2486/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: PendingITAT Delhi03 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 69A

Form No. 35 narrating the sufficient cause in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and not stated any sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the Appealon delay in latches, which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal ... parte without hearing the Assessee. Further, the Appeal has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) as the Assessee has not sought condonation of delay in form No. 35. Considering the facts that the Assessee has not participated 3 Mrs. Surekha Sharma Vs. ITO in the first Appellate proceedings

Saint Marys Educational Society, Allahabad vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Prayagraj

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 61/ALLD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria, Ju Dicial Member

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 253(3)

assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of the I.T. Act. The assessee has submitted an application dated 04/04/2025 for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal ... hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the I.T.A. No.61/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2018-19 2 appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before

Vishnu Kumar Kesarwani, Prayagraj vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3), Allahabad

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

ITA 116/ALLD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 147Section 253(3)

beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short). The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay in filing of this appeal along with an affidavit. The application for condonation of delay is reproduced below for the ease of reference: I.T.A. No.116/Alld/2025 ... requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and I.T.A. No.116/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2011-12 6 being convinced with the pleadings

Dhirajlal Nathubhai Bhut, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 574/RJT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(b)Section 272(1)

grounds of appeal.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 230 days. The assessee moved a petition for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The learned Counsel adverted my attention to the reasons for condonation of delay before this Tribunal ... urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 230 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, learned DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. A perusal of the reasons and sufficient cause explained by the ld. Counsel

Sarjan Structure, Amreli vs. The DCIT/ACIT-2(1), Rajkot

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 413/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.413/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Sarjan Structure, Vs. The Dcit/Acit-2(1) Shyam Shikhar Complex, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Liliya Road, Course Ring Road, Amreli (Gujarat)– 365601 Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acofs8085K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Devina Patel, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Bynational Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 28/02/2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 29/12/2019, U/S 143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: 1. The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Visakhapatnam Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Ex-Parte. Sarjan Structure Amreli

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18, is barred by limitation by 49 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. I have gone through the petition for condonation of delay, and the sufficient cause explained by the assessee, in the petition for condonation ... delay. Ms. Devina Patel, the learned Counsel for the assessee adverted my attention to the reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 49 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. However, learned DR for the revenue, opposed the prayer

Vinta Laboratories Pvt Ltd, Vishakhapatnam vs. DCIT Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 467/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.467/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Vs. Dcit – Circle – 3(1) Vinta Laboratories Private Limited Plot No. 23-D, Apsez- De-Notified Area 1St Floor, Infinity Towers Apiic Rambilli Mandal D.No. 50-92-34/1/1 Visakhapatnam – 531011 Sankarmatham Road Andhra Pradesh Resapuvanipalem, Shanthipuram Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan:Aarcs7889P] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri N.R. Agrawal, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 37

filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: - “I, Prakash Reddy Vinta Director of Vinta Laboratories Private Limited (Previous Known ... Accountant N R Agrawal & Company and hence there was a delay in filing appeal by 1 day. I request your honour to Kindly Condone the Delay in filling the appeal in Form no. 36. That I hereby declare and verify that the whatever stated as above, are true and correct

Rajaji Educational Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 437/VIZ/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

cause on the part of the assessee for the delay in filing of the appeal by 532 days. We are therefore inclined to condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 7. The only issue emanating from the grounds of appeal is denial ... while the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee exparte. Considering the facts and circumstances as narrated in the petition for condonation of delay, assessee was prevented from responding to the notices for the reasons as mentioned in the petition. In these circumstances, following the principle of natural

Rajaji Educational Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 436/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

cause on the part of the assessee for the delay in filing of the appeal by 532 days. We are therefore inclined to condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 7. The only issue emanating from the grounds of appeal is denial ... while the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee exparte. Considering the facts and circumstances as narrated in the petition for condonation of delay, assessee was prevented from responding to the notices for the reasons as mentioned in the petition. In these circumstances, following the principle of natural

Janardhanan Namboodiri Muthathi Ellam, Kannur vs. ITO Ward 3, Kannur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 687/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Janardhanan Namboodiri .......... Appellant Muthathi Ellam, Korrom P.O., Payannur Kannur 670370 [Pan: Aampe6755E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Kannur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Arun Raj, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 250

Registry has reported that the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 182 days. The assessee has moved a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit dated 23.09.2025, which is placed in record. In the said affidavit, the assessee has explained reason of delay. The assessee

Anis Ahmad, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 463/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Anis Ahmad V. The Income Tax Officer 95/91, Ameen Ganj Ward 1(3)(1) Parade, Kanpur (U.P) Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aozpa6913K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 24.06.2025 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit of the assessee, stating therein that the assessee was not aware of the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) having ... view of the prayer made by the Assessee, duly supported by an Affidavit and no objection by the Ld. Sr. D.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 6.0 At the outset, the Ld. A.R. submitted that in this case, the notice

Venus Nirman Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 317/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 144B

State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability ... State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability

Venus Nirman Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 316/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 144B

State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability ... State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability

Venus Nirman Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 315/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 144B

State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability ... State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability

Venus Nirman Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 120/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Raghu Nath Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 144B

State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability ... State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability

ACIT Cirlce-1, Lucknow vs. U P Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Limited, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 371/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Shyam Lal, CA
Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

deduction u/s 80P of the Act.” (A.1) The appeal is time barred by 17 days. The Revenue has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of application, we have satisfied that delay ITA. No. 371/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 10 in filing of appeal

Balwinder Singh, Kurukshetra vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Kurukshetra, Haryana

Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 820/CHANDI/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT

parte order of the ld.CIT (Appeals). Even before this Tribunal also, it is time barred by 533 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed wherein it has been pleaded that the assessee is an illiterate person and is not having any knowledge about the Income

Umed Singh, New Delhi vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 14(1), Pune, Range Code 58, Dgit (Investigation)

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

ITA 7/PUN/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jain (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar (Virtual)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)

There is delay in filing of the present appeal. 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 appeal within the 2 prescribed time limit. After hearing ... condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in operating a security agency. The assessee filed his return of income declaring taxable income of Rs.33,15,260/-. The said return was processed

Om J J Swa Vishwashanti Dham Nirman Sanstha, Verul vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 2090/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing, in the interest of justice.” The Assessee filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay as under : “AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY I, Mr. Lakshmangiri Guru Mounagiriji, aged about 67 years, having Aadhaar No. 6555 2265 4680 and PAN EICPM9238N ... delay in filing the appeal may please be condoned in the interest of justice. The appellant has a strong case on ments, non-condonation of delay would result in irreparable harm and denial of justice to the appellant and, the appellant Trust may suffer a grave injustice. It is also

Pune E Commodites Broking Private Limited, Pune vs. Ward 4(5), Pune

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

ITA 2071/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

common order. 3. There is delay in filing of both the 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 and proceed to adjudicate both the appeals. ITA No.2070/PUN/2025, A.Y 2013-14 : 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business activities as a Broker & is a member of Multi Commodity Exchange

Pune E Commodites Broking Private Limited, Pune vs. Ward 4(5), Pune

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

ITA 2070/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

common order. 3. There is delay in filing of both the 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 and proceed to adjudicate both the appeals. ITA No.2070/PUN/2025, A.Y 2013-14 : 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business activities as a Broker & is a member of Multi Commodity Exchange