“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

Sejal Milan Vora, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4708/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.” 3. Though the Ld. DR refuted the claim of the assessee qua condonation of delay, however, this court find the reasons stated by the assessee for condonation of delay, which are duly supported with duly sworn affidavit, as reasonable

Mayur Govindbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, terms of Paragraph 15 above, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4179/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

record. 7. We find that for the delay of 51 days in filing the present appeal. The Assessee has filed application seeking condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the circumstances in which the delay had occurred in filing the present appeal. We have taken into the aforesaid application ... Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others AIR 1987 1353 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay, emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Every day’s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should

Mayur Govindbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, terms of Paragraph 15 above, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4177/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

Mayur Govindbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, terms of Paragraph 15 above, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4165/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

Kirtikumar Champaklal Bhimani (Properitor M/S. Shanti Industries), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4145/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vihit ShahFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat

Section 143(1)

property income, thereby resulting in double taxation of the same income, which is wholly unjustified and contrary to settled principles of taxation. 2. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... condoning the delay in filing the appeal without appreciating that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but caused due to bona fide and reasonable circumstances, which are summarized as under: a. The appellant had disagreed with the demand raised under Section 143(1) on 25.08.2022 via the e-filing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-17(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Fairdeal Electronics, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and CO filed by the Assessee, stands dismissed

ITA 4088/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017 & Co No. 211/M/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/w Adnya BhandariFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 250Section 263

occurred was neither intentional nor malafide or willful but beyond the control of the assessee. Considering the reason stated by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing of CO, as reasonable and plausible, the delay is condoned. 4. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that

Rakesh Ramadhar Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4027/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhrirakesh Ramadhar Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, 304, B-Wing Dolphin Ward 2(3)(2), Heritage, Nehru Road, Opp. Room No. 581A, Military Camp, Santacruz 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, East, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400029. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Altps1647P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh JainFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR

Section 144Section 147Section 250

case. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble members are requested to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter or to amend any of the ground ... placed in UttarPradesh due to which he could not properly co-ordinate the compliance to the tax notices. He has therefore, requested for condonation of delay which occurred due to genuine and bonafide reasons. After considering the submissions of the assessee, we hereby condone the delay being on account

Shashwat Foundation Trust, Mumbai vs. I.T.O Exem Ward 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3553/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Shashwat Foundation Trust I.T.O. Exemption 253/C, Kelichi Chawl, Ward 2(3), Mumbai G. K. Marg, Lower Parel, Vs. Mumbai – 400013. (Pan: Aalts8825J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Shyamsunder Agrawal, Ca Revenue : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074468829(1), Dated 13.03.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru, U/S. 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.08.2023 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground No. 1 In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T. (Appeal) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal & Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal Without Appreciating The Fact That: The Appellant Is A Charitable Trust

For Appellant: Shri Shyamsunder Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, SR. DR

Section 12ASection 143Section 154Section 249(3)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T. (Appeal) has erred in dismissing the appeal and not condoning the delay in filing the appeal without appreciating the fact that: The appellant is a charitable trust 2 Shashwat Foundation Trust AY 2020-21 The Assessing Officer ... without dealing on the merits of the case. We further note from the first appellate order that assessee had made application for condonation of delay explaining its case whereby the delay was on 331 days. 3 Shashwat Foundation Trust AY 2020-21 3.1 Before us, assessee furnished a notarised affidavit

M/S. Bharat Agri Fert and Realty Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3360/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Varsha NanwaniFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha

Section 143(3)

delay of 13 days in filing the appeal is condoned in view of the explanation furnished by the Assessee in the application seeking condonation of delay supported by sworn affidavit of sworn by the managing director of the Assessee company. In our view the Assessee had sufficient cause for Assessment

Shree Siddhnath Sahakari Pathpedi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 41(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for all the assessment year stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3288/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 22Section 5Section 56Section 80P(2)(d)

about the appeals being disposed off by the NFAC. The assessee immediately took necessary steps to filed present appeals along with application seeking condonation of delay. 2.2 The Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee is co-operative society and due to the above inadvertence the appeal could not be filed within ... before this Tribunal and prayed for admitting the appeals to be adjudicated on merits. 2.3 On the contrary, the Ld.DR objected for the condonation of delay. 3 ITA No. 3286/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 Shree Siddhnath Sahakari Pathpedi Maryadit We have perused the submissions advance by both sides in the light

Shree Siddhnath Sahakari Pathpedi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 41(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for all the assessment year stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3287/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 22Section 5Section 56Section 80P(2)(d)

Shree Siddhnath Sahakari Pathpedi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 41(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for all the assessment year stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3286/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 22Section 5Section 56Section 80P(2)(d)

Deepti Shreyas Talpade, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(5) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 272/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhrideepti Shreyas Talpade Vs. Ito Ward 24(1)(5) 701, 7Th Floor, Dlh Room No. 702, 7Th Floor, Enclave, 90’ Wide Dp Road, Piramal Chamber, Near Windmere Building, Lalbaug, Parel, Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aehpt6420L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

outset, it is seen that the appeal is delayed by 380 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit and application for condonation of delay on the ground that her husband was unwell and had to undergo angioplasty in December 2023. Assessee could not pay attention to the tax matters during ... this period being pre-occupied with husband’s healthcare and recovery. Considering the submissions of the assessee, we condone the delay as the same appears to be for bonafide reasons. 4. The brief fact of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income

Rahi Motor Transport Co, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 23(3), Mumbai

ITA 1845/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250

very outset, we noticed that there is delay of 47 days in filing 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: 1.0 This has reference to the Appeal preferred before Your Honor ... necessary documentary evidences by Mr. Zubair Jagirdar during the Appellate Proceedings to corroborate with the said contentions raised in this Request for Condonation of Delay 4.0 In view of the aforesaid bonafide and genuine circumstances and in view of the fact that the circumstances were beyond the control

Rahi Motor Transport Co, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 23(3), Mumbai

ITA 1844/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250

Sham Sunder Mongia, Haryana, India vs. CIT (A) National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi, India

ITA 5832/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayassessment Year : 2018-19 Sham Sunder Mongia, Vs. Assessment Unit, 2, Bank Colony, Income-Tax Department. Op. Central Jain, Delhi Road, Hisar – 125 001, Haryana. Pan: Abopm2281J Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 147

been passed by the NFAC whereby the appeal of the assessee delayed by 18 days has been dismissed without admitting and not condoning the delay. After going through the impugned order, we find that the NFAC mentions in para 5 the reasons for delay, but, ignoring that the assessee ... procedure and following judicial decisions which cannot be justified in case of an individual, dismissed the appeal in limine. 4. Accordingly, allowing condonation of delay we allow the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes and restore the issue on merits as well as on law for determination afresh

Evergreen Bamboo India Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 8(1), Delhi

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

ITA 4032/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shuklai.T.A. No. 4032/Del/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Evergreen Bamboo India Private Vs Ito Limited, 1 & 2, Ground Floor Ward 8(1) No. 10672 (4/47), Plot No. 47, Assessment Unit, Income Block 4, Khasra No. 5068/2 Tax Department, 619, Karol Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacce3617J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Manish Khurana, Adv Revenue By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal

Section 144Section 147Section 68

Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 09 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application for condoning the delay. For the reason sated in the application of condonation of delay, the delay of 09 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned

Maa Kailadevi Oil Industries, Morena vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior

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

ITA 329/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Maa Kailadevi Oil Industries, Vs. Pr. Cit, Bheem Nagar, Ater Road, Gwalior Porsa, Morena, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aasfm4432G Assessee By : Shri Ramakant Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ramakant Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

that there is a delay of 366 days in filing of 2. appeal before us by the assessee. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay and in the application filed for the condonation, the assessee submitted that the tax matters of the assessee being looked after by another professional ... assessee and it was occurred solely due to absence of necessary information and guidance of the relevant time and prayed for condonation of delay. On the other hand, the ld DR objected to the same. 3. Considering the submissions of the assessee and we find that delay in filing

Mr.Shailendra Kumar, Agra vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(2), Agra

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

ITA 229/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

dated 31.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act, upon rejection of ITA No. 228 & 229/Agr/2025 assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay and also dismissed assessee’s first appeal, affirming the penalty order dated 27.09.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the ground ... Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the same in limine upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay caused in filing the first appeal. 5. This second appeal has been filed on the ground, in addition to others, that ld. CIT(Appeals) erred

Mr.Shailendra Kumar, Agra vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(2), Agra

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

ITA 228/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)