← 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

Pankaj Kumar, Muzaffarpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 645/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.649, 645, 646 & 650/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2017–18, 2018–19, 2019–20 & 2020–21 Pankaj Kumar……..……………..………. …………………....Appellant Saraiyaganj, Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001.. [Pan: Alipk3534A] Vs. Cit Patna……………......…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Amit Kamalia, Ca., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 21, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: These Four Captioned Appeals—Ita No. 649/Patna/2024 For A.Y. 2017–18, Ita No. 645/Patna/2024 For A.Y. 2018–19, Ita No. 646/Patna/2024 For A.Y. 2019–20 & Ita No. 650/Patna/2024 For A.Y. 2020–21—Are Filed By The Same Assessee Against The Orders Of The Learned Cit(A), Relating To Penalty Imposed Under Section 270A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Arising Out Of The Respective Assessment Orders. Since The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Are Common Except For Variation In Figures & Assessment Years, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That There Is A Delay Of Four Days In Filing The Appeals Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270A

four days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition I.T.A. Nos.649, 645, 646 & 650/Pat/2024 Pankaj Kumar for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the submissions and materials on record, we are satisfied that the delay was due to reasonable

M/S. Avanish Orchardes Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee’s are partly-allowed

ITA 1796/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1791/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 M/S. Anantram Orchards Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, No.425, 10Th Cross, 18Th Main, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai. Jp Nagar, 2Nd Phase, Jp Nagar, Bangalore – 560 078. Pan: Aaica 8327R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1792/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 M/S. Betelnut Estates Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, (Studio N), Sy No.70, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai. Narne Nagar, Beside Lancohills, Manikonda, Hyderabad – 500 075. Pan: Aafcb 7171D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 68

appeal has been filed within the due date prescribed). The Managing Director’s of the above assessee companies have filed petitions for condonation of delay and also supporting affidavits stating therein the reasons for belated filing of appeals and prayed for condonation of delay. On perusal of the reasons stated ... satisfied that there is sufficient cause for late filing of these appeals and no latches can be attributed to the assessees. Hence, we condone the delay in filing these appeals and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits. ITA Nos.1791, 1792, 1994 :- 4 -: & 1796/Chny/2025 3. Common issues are raised

M/S. Chittaswarup Agro Farming Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee’s are partly-allowed

ITA 1794/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1791/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 M/S. Anantram Orchards Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, No.425, 10Th Cross, 18Th Main, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai. Jp Nagar, 2Nd Phase, Jp Nagar, Bangalore – 560 078. Pan: Aaica 8327R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1792/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 M/S. Betelnut Estates Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, (Studio N), Sy No.70, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai. Narne Nagar, Beside Lancohills, Manikonda, Hyderabad – 500 075. Pan: Aafcb 7171D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 68

appeal has been filed within the due date prescribed). The Managing Director’s of the above assessee companies have filed petitions for condonation of delay and also supporting affidavits stating therein the reasons for belated filing of appeals and prayed for condonation of delay. On perusal of the reasons stated ... satisfied that there is sufficient cause for late filing of these appeals and no latches can be attributed to the assessees. Hence, we condone the delay in filing these appeals and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits. ITA Nos.1791, 1792, 1994 :- 4 -: & 1796/Chny/2025 3. Common issues are raised

M/S. Betelnut Estates Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee’s are partly-allowed

ITA 1792/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1791/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 M/S. Anantram Orchards Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, No.425, 10Th Cross, 18Th Main, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai. Jp Nagar, 2Nd Phase, Jp Nagar, Bangalore – 560 078. Pan: Aaica 8327R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1792/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 M/S. Betelnut Estates Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, (Studio N), Sy No.70, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai. Narne Nagar, Beside Lancohills, Manikonda, Hyderabad – 500 075. Pan: Aafcb 7171D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 68

appeal has been filed within the due date prescribed). The Managing Director’s of the above assessee companies have filed petitions for condonation of delay and also supporting affidavits stating therein the reasons for belated filing of appeals and prayed for condonation of delay. On perusal of the reasons stated ... satisfied that there is sufficient cause for late filing of these appeals and no latches can be attributed to the assessees. Hence, we condone the delay in filing these appeals and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits. ITA Nos.1791, 1792, 1994 :- 4 -: & 1796/Chny/2025 3. Common issues are raised

M/S. Anantram Orchards Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee’s are partly-allowed

ITA 1791/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1791/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 M/S. Anantram Orchards Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, No.425, 10Th Cross, 18Th Main, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai. Jp Nagar, 2Nd Phase, Jp Nagar, Bangalore – 560 078. Pan: Aaica 8327R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1792/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 M/S. Betelnut Estates Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, (Studio N), Sy No.70, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai. Narne Nagar, Beside Lancohills, Manikonda, Hyderabad – 500 075. Pan: Aafcb 7171D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 68

appeal has been filed within the due date prescribed). The Managing Director’s of the above assessee companies have filed petitions for condonation of delay and also supporting affidavits stating therein the reasons for belated filing of appeals and prayed for condonation of delay. On perusal of the reasons stated ... satisfied that there is sufficient cause for late filing of these appeals and no latches can be attributed to the assessees. Hence, we condone the delay in filing these appeals and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits. ITA Nos.1791, 1792, 1994 :- 4 -: & 1796/Chny/2025 3. Common issues are raised

Keshram, Village- Patwari vs. The ITO Ward- 5(2)(1), G Budh Nagar, Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 2158/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2158/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Keshram Through Legal Heir Shri Sunder Singh, Village Patwari Bisrakh, Gatam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 203207 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Bqgpk-1567-D बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -5(2)(1), Gatam Buddha Nagar, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Uttar Pradesh 201303 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 24/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 10.01.2024, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 53 Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Supported By An Affidavit. After Perusal Of Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, But Is For The Reasons

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

dated 10.01.2024, for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The appeal is time barred by 53 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. After perusal of same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(1), Surat vs. Ambubhai Thakorbhai Patel, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1020/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1020/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Income-Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), Ambubhai Thakorbhai Patel बनाम/ Surat, Room No. 614, 6Th Floor, 2/5 Bhesan, Gosai Faliyu Choryasi, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 005 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ctopp 7620 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ""या"ेप सं /Co No.9/Srt/2025 (A/O Ita No.1020/Srt/2024/ (Ay 2018-19) Ambubhai Thakorbhai Patel Income-Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), बनाम/ 2/5 Bhesan, Gosai Faliyu Surat, Room No. 614, 6Th Floor, Vs. Choryasi, Surat-395 005 Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ctopp 7620 J (""यथ"/Respondent) (Co-Objector)

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(2)Section 48

merit. 5. There is delay of 317 days in filing CO before Tribunal. The appellant has filed application supported by an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing CO. It is submitted that due to non-receipt of Form-36, the appellant could not file the CO within the prescribed ... circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. He requested to condone the delay and admit the CO in the interest of natural justice, equity and fair play. 5.1 On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue

No H 1043 Bhujabalapatnam Primary Agriculture Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, Krishna Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudiwada

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

ITA 426/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal. The Petitioner/Appellant Society Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Wherein It Was Submitted That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Was Sent To The Email Of Its Then Ar, Ca B.V. Rao, Instead Of Its Email "Krishnapacs085@Gmail.Com," As Had Been Requested By It. The Appellant Society Came To Know Of The Order Only When Itd Officials Called Upon It To Pay The Tax Arrears. It Further Submitted That, Due To The Above Circumstances Beyond Its Control & Prayed That The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal May Please Be Condoned In The Interest Of Justice & That The Appeal Be Decided On Merits.

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 80P(2)(a)

appeal be decided on merits. 3. Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, did not strongly oppose the condonation of delay in view of the reasonable cause explained by the petitioner. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the petition and affidavit filed ... petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 3 69 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. We find that, the reasons explained by the petitioner in its affidavit appear to be genuine and bonafide and come under reasonable cause. We find that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Navudai Shikshan and Jan Kalyan Sewa Samiti, Kanpur vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

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

ITA 96/LKW/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Navudai Shikshan & Jan Kalyan Sewa Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Samiti, 117/K/30, Sarvodaya Nagar, Tax (Exemption), Lucknow Kanpur-208005 Pan: Aagfn4916N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 30.03.2021 Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act For The A.Y. 2016-17 On 15.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Order Passed By Cit(E) U/S 263 Of The Act Dt. 30.03.2021 Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Be Quashed. 02. Because The Order Passed By Ao, Being Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue The Action Of The Cit(E) Set-Asiding The Said Order Is Without Jurisdiction, Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Order Passed By The Ao Being Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue, The Cit(E) Has Erred In Law In Setting Aside The Same, The Order Passed By Cit(E) Be Quashed & That As Passed By The Ao Be Restored. 04. Because The Cit(E) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Initial Assessment Was A Deep Scrutiny Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Wherein Voluminous Queries Were Raised Which Were Complied With & Thoroughly Examined/ Verified By The Ao, The Necessary Enquiring Having Being Done, It Is Neither A Case Of No Inquiring Or Lack Of Enquiring, As Such The Cit(E) Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order, The Order Passed By Cit(E) Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

quashed.” 2. It is observed that the assessee’s appeal is delayed by 116 days. Subsequently, a petition has been filed for the condonation of delay in which it has been submitted that the order of the ld. CIT (Exemption) was served on the assessee on 15.04.2021 and according