“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

Ramesh Shankarrao Wagh, Pune vs. Assessing Officer Ward 8(3), Pune

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

ITA 1994/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Divyesh TripathiFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar (Virtual)

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154

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 having income from patent & has furnished its return of income on 29.07.2022 by declaring an income of Rs.65,97,620/-. Vide intimation dated 13.03.2023 the return

Bible Fellowship Centre Wagholi, Pune vs. ITO, Exemption, Ward-1(2), Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 1887/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G

Before me, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred to CBDT Circular No.07/2018 dated 20.12.2018. It has been issued by the CBDT regarding condonation of delay u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act in filing of Form No.10/9A for A.Y. 2016-17 and the same reads as under : “Sub: Condonation ... Accordingly, in supersession of earlier Circular/Instruction issued in this regard, with a view to expedite the disposal of applications filed by trusts for condoning the delay and in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby authorizes

Moto Drive Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Cir-7, Pune

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

ITA 1543/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jha

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)

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 2 applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the 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 a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of automobile parts and servicing of vehicles and has not furnished its return of income for the period under consideration. Statutory

Shri Krishna Shewa Trust, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1489/PUN/2025[Not Available]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025

Section 124(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)

delete the grounds of appeal raised above during the appellate proceedings in the interest of natural justice.’ ” The Assessee filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay as under : “I. Mr. Haresh M Advani, Trustee of Shri Krishna Shewa Trust, Age: 59, Residing at: PremKutir Fl.No.3 9, Sadhu Vaswani Road ... trustees, sincerely submit that the delay caused is not deliberate, but a probable one. I most humbly request to kindly condone this delay and admit our application. I hereby solemnly affirm that whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Affidavit of Auditor

Pravin Prakashchand Mehta, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(3), Pune

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 475/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.475/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Pravin Prakashchand Mehta, V The Income Tax Officer, B 10, Pati Regency, S Ward-8(3), Pune. Erandwane, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aavpm4448H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ms Sampada Ingale (Virtual) On Behalf Of Shri Suhas P. Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 06/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal(Nfac) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2016-17 Dated 11.01.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 08.03.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :

Section 119(2)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the appellant has made an application u/s 119(2) for condonation of delay in filing the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 04/05/2017. However the same has not been decided by the PCCIT, Pune till date ... disallowance of carry forward of business losses is not sustainable in as much as the appellant has duly filed an application for condonation of delay u/s 119(2) on 04/05/2017 and the same remains undecided till date 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the disallowance

Ekashila Reddy Sankshema Sangam, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 911/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.911/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ekashila Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Sankshema Sangam, Ward 1 Warangal Warangal Pan:Aaaae8858K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.DR

Section 147

Ekashila Reddy Sankshema Sangam Warangal appeal of the assessee on the grounds of non-prosecution as well as limitation, having refused to condone the delay. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) invited ... more opportunity to the assessee to prosecute the appeal on merits. 6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the condonation of delay and supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). It was contended that the assessee had failed to show reasonable cause before

Victory Marvel Seeds India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward (TDS)-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 879/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.722, 879 & 723/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016 Victorymarvel Seeds India The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-(Tds)-2(3), Secunderabad - Vs. Hyderabad. Pin – 500 004 500014 Pan Aaccv9056A. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Kumar Pal Tated राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Three Appeals Ita Nos.722, 879 & 723/Hyd./2025 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Three Separate Orders Dated 29.01.2025, 29.01.2025 & 12.02.2025 Of The Learned Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal

For Appellant: CA Kumar Pal TatedFor Respondent: : Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. AR

Section 200ASection 234E

assessment years 2013-2014 and 2015- 2016 and 17 days delay for the assessment year 2014-2015. The assessee has filed petitions for condonation of delay which are supported by the affidavits of the assessee explaining the cause of delay. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee submitted that ... rival submissions and careful perusal of the reasons explained by the assessee company in the affidavits as well as the petitions for condonation of delay, we are satisfied with the reasons explained by the assessee company for the delay of 26 days and 17 days respectively in filing these three

Mohd Noorul Huda, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 843/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons in both the appeals that, against the order passed under Section 147 r.w. Section 144 dated 17.03.2022, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) on 10.10.2023. In Form No.35, the assessee had provided the email ID mohdnoorulhuda513@gmail.com and opted not to receive communication by email. However, the CIT(A) sent the notices and the order under Section 250 to the old email ID noorulhuda80085@gmail.com, to which the asses

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

decided on merits. 3. Shri Gurpreet Singh, learned Senior A.R., for the Revenue, on the other hand, did not strongly oppose the condonation of delay, in view of the reasonable cause explained by the assessee. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the petition and affidavit filed ... assessee seeking condonation of delay of 105 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. We find that, the reasons explained by the assessee appear to be genuine and bonafide and come under reasonable cause. We further find that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land

Mohd Noorul Huda, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 842/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons in both the appeals that, against the order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 dated 17.03.2022, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) on 10.10.2023. In Form No.35, the assessee had provided the email ID mohdnoorulhuda513@gmail.com and opted not to receive communication by email. However, the CIT(A) sent the notices and the order under Section 250 to the old email ID noorulhuda80085@gmail.com, to which the

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Bhanwar Lal, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 75/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Moorthy K, SR-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69

delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay of 1262 days in filing of the appeal before him on the ground that the assessee had given health reasons for not filing the appeal ... time, but could not substantiate the reasons with relevant evidences. Therefore, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that

Victorymarvel Seeds India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward (TDS)-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 723/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: CA Kumar Pal TatedFor Respondent: : Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. AR

Section 200ASection 234E

Victorymarvel Seeds India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward (TDS)-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 722/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: CA Kumar Pal TatedFor Respondent: : Sri Krishna Moorthy K. Sr. AR

Section 200ASection 234E

Jhansi Kasam, Nalgonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Suryapet

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

ITA 1417/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1417/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jhansi Kasam Vs. Income Tax Officer Nalgonda Ward -1 Pan:Bvwpk2768P Suryapet (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Vinod, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri V Ravish Bhatt, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri P Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri V Ravish Bhatt, Sr.DR

Section 144

admission of the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”), on the other hand, objected to the condonation of delay, contending that the notices were sent by the Ld. CIT (A) to the mail ID available on the I.T Portal. 4. We have heard ... application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, taking a judicial and liberal approach, we condone the delay of 211 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits. Page

Kalpesh Kumar Ramanlal Shah, Davangere vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Davangere

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1169/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., JCIT-DR

Section 11Section 119Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80I

filing of form 10B belatedly, however, in that case the Assessee approached the appropriate authority u/s 119(2b) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing of form 10B. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court thus by considering the identical issue, held as under: “That in the cases ... availing of exemption should not be denied merely on the bar of limitation, especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned. This Court in CIT Vs. Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj.) has also held that

Attivo Protezione Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-22(1)(1), Lalbaug

ITA 5380/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainattivo Protezione Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward – 22(1)(1) 108, 1St Floor Ashar Enclave Room No. 319, Piramal Kolshet Road, Thane – 400 Chambers, Mumbai 607. Pan/Gir No. Aalca4330M (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 5

said application I find no reasons for further adjournment as the assessee was required to file affidavit along with the application for seeking condonation of delay of 1370 days in filing the appeal, the said affidavit was required to be filed but the same was not filed on 29.08.2025 when ... said order passed u/s 250 of the Act, therefore appeal was not filed. 5. To my mind this cannot be a reason for condoning the delay of 1370 days. After having examine the issue in the light of the facts and the circumstances of the case and also in view

Poonam Singh, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5156/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Varun Sharma, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nakul Agrawal, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 144Section 250Section 50C

documents and the details of the Court proceedings and duly sworn affidavit. Though the Ld. DR refuted the claim of the assessee qua condonation of delay, however, not the documents, filed and demonstrated by the assessee. 3. Having considered the reasons stated by the assessee for condonation of delay, which ... duly supported with relevant medical documents and Court proceedings and duly sworn affidavit as genuine, reasonable and plausible cause for condonation of delay, the delay of 355 days is condoned. 4. Coming to the merits of the case it is observed that though the assessee challenged the addition

Ramnikkumar Hirachand Togani, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(6), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5133/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above.

For Appellant: Shri Ramnikkumar H. ToganiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 143(3)Section 249(2)

Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal Assessment Year 2013-2014 preferred by the Assessee against the Assessment Order holding as under: “6. Condonation of delay The date of service of order/notice of demand is 04.04.2016 and appeal was filed on 13.06.2016. As such, appeal was not filed within the time ... prescribed u/s.249(2) of the Act. The appellant, however, filed condonation of delay petition and even mentioned that there was no delay in filing appeal in SI No.14 of form no.35. 7. Decision Considering that the appeal was not filed within the time allowed u/s.249

Nashabandi Mandal Maharashtra State, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 5099/MUM/2025[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed ImtiyazFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr.A.R

Section 12Section 12A

Assessee had once again applied for final registration in form No. 10AB but with a slight delay accompanying the application for condonation of delay. 4. Though, the Ld. Commissioner considered the reply of the Assessee, however not being satisfied with reasons of delay rejected said application filed by the Assessee ... cause for delay or to establish that the assessee trust had genuine hardship in filing of the application date. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is not accepted. In absence of necessary compliance made by the applicant against the violation raised as above, he is unable to arrive

Nashabandi Mandal Maharashtra State Charitable Institution, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 5098/MUM/2025[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed ImtiyazFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr.A.R

Section 12Section 12A

Late Mohd Ayub Gulamhasan Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5016/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosaina.Ys: 2018-19

Section 250

noticed that there is a delay of 2. 193 days in filing the present appeal and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under: 2 Late Md. Ayub Gulamhasan Khan,. Mumbai. Zaid Mohd Ayub Khan ... Tribunal in respect of A.Y.2018-19 on behalf of my father who expired giving the reasons for delay in filing of an appeal and condonation of delay. 3. That my father expired on 08/10/2022 at the age of 55 years. 4. There was no one knowing about the income tax proceedings