“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

Diy Furnitures Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, TDS, Ward-1, Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 981/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AR

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 250

were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No.980 and 981/Ahd/2025 2. Condonation of Delay: 2.1 At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 517 days in filing the appeal against the order passed under ... Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others (167 ITR 471) has laid down that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay, since the expression “sufficient cause” must receive a justice- oriented construction. Similarly, in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy

Diy Furnitures Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 980/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Respondent: Shree Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 250

Mikal Bhupendrabhai Patel, Petlad vs. I.T.O Ward 1(3)(1), Petlad

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 474/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Jainish Parikh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

record. At the outset, it is noted that the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 304 days. No application for condonation of delay has been filed along with any supporting Affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. In the absence of any plausible or reasonable cause being ... shown by the assessee for such an inordinate delay, we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing of the present appeal. The law in this regard is well settled that sufficient cause for delay must be explained with bona fide reasons, and mere inaction, negligence, or indifference cannot

Mikal Bhupendrabhai Patel, Petlad vs. I.T.O Ward 1(3)(1), Petlad

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 473/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Jainish Parikh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Shri Shetrapaldada Aadthakkar Parivar De vs. Than Trust, Ahmedabadvs.the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 404/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : - Shri Shetrapaldada Aadthakkar The Cit(Exemption) Parivar Devsthan Trust Vs. Vejalpur Ahmedabad. C/O. Divyang Shah & Co., Chartered Accountants 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex Nr.Regenta Central Atarim Hotel Off: Cg Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Abbts 8509 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2025

For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 12A

aggrieved by the said order, the applicant/appellant filed the present appeal belatedly by 21 days for the reason set out in application for condonation of delay and the affidavit of the trustee. The applicant/appellant stated that on receipt of the order dated 01.11.2023 passed by the CIT(E) on first

Shri Mohanlal Savaichand Surani Unwala Dasha Shrimali Jain Trust, Patan vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1739/AHD/2025[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : - Shri Mohanlal Savalchand The Cit(Exemption) Surani Unwala Dasha Shrimali Vs. Ahmedabad. Jain Trust 20, New Market Yard Patan Pan : Aabts 3803 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri H.V. Doshi, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2025

For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 12A

rejecting the assessee’s application for registration under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “The Act”]. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 The registry has noted that the appeal is filed with a delay of 44 days. The assessee has filed an application supported ... affidavit, seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. 2 2.2 In the application and the accompanying affidavit, the assessee-trust has explained that the delay occurred due to lack of awareness of the rejection order under section 12AB of the Act, as the trustees were not conversant with

Foram Foundation, Vadodara vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1139/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1139/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : N.A. Foram Foundation The Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ Office No.513, 6Th Floor, Ahmedabad – 380 015 V/S. Lalita Tower Station Jetalpur Road Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaatf 3741 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Viranch Modi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee-Trust Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld.Cit(E)’] Dated 16/12/2024, Rejecting The Application Of The Assessee For Approval Under Sub-Clause(B) Of Clause (Iv) Of First Proviso To Sub-Section (5) Of Section 80G Of The Income Tax, Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). Foram Foundation Vs. Cit (E)

For Appellant: Shri Viranch Modi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Foram Foundation vs. CIT (E) 2 2. The appeal of the assessee is time-barred by 82 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the Ld.CIT(E) has dismissed the application

Medip Healthtech Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1069/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 M/S.Medip Healthtech Pvt. Ltd. The Dcit, Sf-210, Devashish Business Park Vs. Cir.2(1)(1) Nr.Popular Domeinn, Satellite Vejalpur Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Aakcm 0291 J (Applicant) (Responent) : Ms.Vinata Bhura, Ar Assessee By : Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 30Section 43B

further submitted that the assessee filed an application under section 119(2)(b) before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ahmedabad, seeking condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10-IC for A.Y. 2020–21. It was also stated that the PCIT, Ahmedabad, after obtaining a report from ... undisputed. It is now an 4 admitted position that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ahmedabad, vide order dated 11.09.2025, has condoned the delay under section 119(2)(b) and granted permission to file Form No. 10-IC for A.Y. 2020–21. The relevant finding from the PCIT

Kausalya Agro Farms Amd Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our above findings

ITA 804/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)(a)Section 36(1)(iii)

merits. ITA No.804/Hyd/2025 3 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the request for condonation of delay. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the present case, the reason for delay has been duly

Neeraj Gupta, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1156/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

that the delay was purely due to circumstances beyond his control. Therefore, the Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) prayed before the Bench to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not make any serious objection to the condonation of delay ... days, and no element of malafide can be attributed. Following the settled judicial principle that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering condonation of delay, we are satisfied that sufficient cause exists for the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 15 days in filing the appeal is condoned

Navayuga Engineering Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle -1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1137/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Dr.Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

condoned in the interest of justice. 3. The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the request for condonation of delay. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The explanation offered by the assessee appears to be bona ... appeal. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hold ITA No.1137/Hyd/2025 4 that sufficient cause exists for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 129 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee