“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

Kali Kinkar Mani, Purnea vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 340/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15 Kali Kinkar Mani…..…….………………. ……………..…..........……….Appellant 155, Mahaboob Khan Tola, Purnia, Bihar – 854301. [Pan: Arypm9775F] Vs. Nfac, Delhi………………….…………..……. ……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Kapil Narayan Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 16, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.10.24 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 202 Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That Due To Chronic Disease & Complete Bed Rest As Per Doctor’S Advice, The Assessee Could Not Able To File The Appeal Timely Before Us & We Note That The Reasons Cited Are Valid & Were Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits. Kali Kinkar Mani

Section 144Section 148Section 250

assessee with a delay of 202 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of the delay. After considering the petition for condonation of delay, we find that due to chronic disease and complete bed rest as per doctor’s advice, the assessee could not able to file ... substantive justice, we deem it fit to remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to condone the delay of 118 days and adjudicate on the merit of the case after affording opportunity to the assessee of hearing. The assessee is directed to cooperate

Shaikh Mahmood Shaikh Chanda, Achalpur vs. ITO Ward-4, Amravati

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

ITA 541/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshaikh Mahmood Shaikh Chanda, 4, Ward No.4, Achalpur, Pathrot -444808, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Alipc0613Q V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward–4, ……………. Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Amravati-444601, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 253Section 271ASection 69

days in filing the appeal and the assessee could not explain the delay with sufficient cause and the CIT(A) has not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine/ not maintainable. The assessee being aggrieved by the CIT(A)order, has filed the appeal ... Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay. The Ld.A.R. mentioned that the delay is not due to the deliberate act and the assessment was received on 13.02.2020 and the appeal was filed

Dilip Budhadev, Indore, Madhya Pradesh vs. The ITO, Sendhwa, Madhya Pradesh

ITA 307/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Indore16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 147Section 153CSection 246ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 253Section 69A

case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as filed by the appellant by declining the condonation of delay in filing of appeal more so when the appellant was having sufficient and reasonable cause for filing of appeal after due-date before

Mukesh Sharma, Jagannat Ganj, Biswan Sitapur vs. ITO, Sitapur

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

ITA 406/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshramukesh Sharma V. Ito 30 Jagannat Ganj, Biswan Sitapur-261201. Sitapur-261201. Pan:Aweps9987J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 144Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 44A

appeal on merits. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by learned CIT(A) on grounds of limitation. The assessee had requested for condonation of delay however, the request of the assessee for condonation of delay was not considered favourably by the learned CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeal ... learned CIT(A) within prescribed time limit. Accordingly, it is held that this was a fit case for the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of the appeal in his office. Further, the assessment order has also been passed ex parte, without providing reasonable opportunity

Income Tax Officer, Lucknow vs. Shyam Sagar Yadav, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 445/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.445/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Lucknow V. Shyam Sagar Yadav 57, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 225, Jiamau, Hazratganj, Ram Teerath Marg, Narhi, Lucknow-226001. Lucknow-226001. Pan:Bdkps3230A अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Harshit Tahilramani, Aca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30 09 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 16 10 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Tahilramani, ACAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 69A

concerned branch of the SBI.” 2. The appeal is time barred by 32 days. The Revenue has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of application, we have satisfied that delay in filing of appeal was for bonafide reasons and not on account

Sanjay Jhawar, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

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

ITA 161/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.161/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanjay Jhawar V. Pcit, Bareilly 253, Madho Bari, Bareilly- Cr Building, Bareilly- 243005. 243001. Pan:Aerpj2156F अपीलाथी/(Appellant) प्रत्यथी/(Respondent) अपीलाथी कक और से/Appellant By: None प्रत्यथी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30 09 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 16 10 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 263

ACIT.” Page 3 of 5 3. The present appeal is barred by 109 days. The assessee has filed application seeking condonation of delay. The reason for delay in the application was stated to be illness of the mother of the assessee. The Ld. DR opposed contents of the application

Amit Saini, Kurukshetra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kurukshetra, Haryana, Ward-I, Kuk

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

ITA 929/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). However, despite several notices under Section 250 being issued electronically to the registered e-mail address, there was no compliance by the assessee. The CIT(A), therefore, proceeded ex parte and held that the assessee had failed to substantiate his grounds of appeal or file any documentary evidence in support of his claim. 7.1 The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly made the addition under Section 144 of the Act since the assessee had not availed the

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 44A

assessee had filed the condonation application seeking condonation. The condonation application is placed on record. 3. Ld. Sr. DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay. 4. After considering the condonation application filed by the assessee in the present appeal, we condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown

Shree Sojitra Kharakuva Shree Khodiyar Mataji Akand Jyoti Trust, Ahmedabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1691/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : - Shree Sojitra Kharakuva Shree The Cit(Exemption) Khodiyar Mataji Akand Jyoti Vs. Ahmedabad. Trust, D-1, Muktidham Co- Society, Opp: Motera Stadium Motera Road, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabts 1714 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Jignesh Karad, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], rejecting the assessee’s application for registration. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 The Registry has reported a delay of 32 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has moved a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by a duly

Shri Kripalu Samadhi Mandir Trust, Kalol vs. The CIT (Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1608/AHD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2025-26 Kripalu Muni Mandal Trust The Ito, Ward At Malav, Taluka Kalol Vs. Exemption. Dist: Panchmahal. Vadodara. Pan : Aaatk 7859 F Asstt.Year : 2025-26 Shri Kripalu Samadhi Mandir Trust The Ito, Ward At, Post Malav Taluka Kalol Vs Exemption. Malav, Kalol. . Vadodara. Pan : Aapts 9485E (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Nishit Shah, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iv)

heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No.1607 and 1608/Ahd/2025 2 2. Condonation of Delay: 2.1 At the outset, it is noticed that both the appeals have been filed belatedly. In the case of both the appeals the delay ... filing the appeal is of 85 days. The trustee of the assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay along with an affidavit reproducing the reasons that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to the following bona fide and unavoidable circumstances

Kripalu Muni Mandal Trust, Kalol, Panchmahal vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1607/AHD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2025-26

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iv)

Kalashree Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 1428/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarkalashree Trust, The Cit(Exemption), 604, Mangal Murti Ahmedabad Complex, Near Shiv Vs (Respondent) Cinema, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Pan: Aaatk8388F (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-D.R

Section 12A

aggrieved by the said order, the applicant/appellant filed the present appeal belatedly by 195 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 22.10.2024 passed by the CIT(E), the applicant

Sneha Pawan Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1369/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA No.1368 and 1369/Ahd/2025 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the outset, it was noted by the Registry that the appeals filed by the assessee were delayed by 177 days ... beyond the prescribed period of limitation under section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by a duly sworn affidavit dated 13.10.2025 explaining the reasons for such delay. 2.2 In the said affidavit, the assessee, Smt. Sneha Pawan Agarwal, stated that

Sneha Pawan Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1368/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

Shree Dasha Porwad Gnyati Samast Panch Gam Mahamandal Trust, Pahchmahal vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1276/AHD/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : - Shree Dasha Porward The Cit(Exemption) Gnyati Samast Panch Vs. Vejalpur Gam Mahamandal Trust Ahmedabad. Sapan Printers Station Road, Halol Godhra. Pan : Aatts 1886 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Rajvaidya, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rajvaidya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 12A

Income Tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], rejecting the application for registration filed in Form 10AB. 2. Condonation of Delay: 2.1 The appeal has been filed with a delay of 122 days, supported by a duly sworn affidavit of the trustee, Shri Pankajkumar Jashavanhlal Parikh, dated ... appellant submits that the rejection without 3 further opportunity to explain or submit pending documents was against the principal of natural justice. 4. Condonation of delay: The appellant respectfully seeks condonation for the delay in filing this appeal due to inadvertent procedural delays and lack of proper guidance

DCIT Cir-5(1), Kolkata vs. Dhunseri Ventures Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1780/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata..……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Dhunseri Ventures Ltd…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 4A, Dhunseri House, Woodburn Park, Kol - 700020.. [Pan: Aabck1597K] Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 16, 2025

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

days. The revenue has filed an affidavit for condonation of the delay. After considering the reasons cited in the affidavit for condonation of delay, we find that the reasons are valid and consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal

DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri vs. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1463/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrisonjoy Sarma, Jm

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

approvals from the competent authorities and accordingly, the delay may be condoned. The Id. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 03. The issue raised

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1038/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrigeorge Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Limited AYs: 2012-13, 2014-15 to 2016-17 counsel and he advised the assessee for filing the appeal as such immediately with condonation of delay. 03. Having considered the reasons attributable to the late filing the appeals, we are of the considered opinion that the delay is for bonafide