“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Somani Services Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2220/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250

disposed off through a single order. 1.1 Both the appeals have been belatedly filed and for the sake of convenience the application for condonation of delay in ITA No. 2219/Kol/2024 is being reproduced for consideration of condonation of said delay: “With due respect, this is to inform you that ... filing appeal.” 1.2 Considering the reasons mentioned in the said petition and also the relative shortness of delay (being 38 days), we hereby condone the delay and admit this appeal for adjudication. Since ITA 2220/Kol/2024 is on a similar footing, with a similar petition, that appeal is also admitted

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Somani Services Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2219/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250

Ramamoorthy Srinivasan Chandilya, Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2029/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2029/Chny/2025 िनधा7रण वष7 /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri B. Suresh, C.A FGFor Respondent: Shri Bipin, C.N, CIT

case for exercise of jurisdiction for transfer of his appeal then, one opportunity may be granted to re-file the appeal for condoning the delay. 4. We find that the assessee’s jurisdictional Assessing Officer is located at Hyderabad. In terms of Rule 4 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal ... assessee to file fresh appeal before the ITAT from the receipt of this order, Hyderabad Bench along with a petition for condonation of delay, if any. With the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

M/S. Shree Renuka Sugars Limited (Successor in Interest of M/S. Monica Trading Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4506/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S. Shree Renuka Sugars V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – (Successor In Interest Of M/S 7(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Monica Trading Pvt. Ltd.),2Nd& M.K. Road, Mumbai – 3Rd Floor, Kanakshree Arcade, 400020, Maharashtra Jnmc Road, Nehru Nagar, Belagavi – 590 010, Karnataka स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs1728B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chythanya, Sr. Adv. & Tata Krishna, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT-DR)

Section 144Section 147

requirement of Rule 9(a) of the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021. 6. The Learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in failing to condone the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal and not hearing the appeal on merits, despite the fact that the Appellant was issued hearing notices wherein ... application within such period…. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs serious risk.” We therefore, condone the delay setting aside the appellate order and also condone the delay in filing instant appeal before us. 6. Brief facts of the case are that

Uttam Hari More, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi

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

ITA 2336/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Shetty, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D/R

Section 147

Thane which address is mentioned while filing the return of income for the assessment year under consideration. The assessee pleaded for the condonation of delay. The ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the contentions of the assessee and after issuing four notices, dismissed the appeal, without admitting the same

ITO 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sumangal Commodities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1302/MUM/2025[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankar: A.Y. : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil ChoudharyFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Hakani

Section 132(4)Section 148Section 68

heard parties. Perused record. 7. In this case, there is a delay of 301 days in filing the appeal. The appellant is seeking condonation of delay. It is pointed out that two appeals were filed in respect of the Respondent for assessment years

Firoz Alam, Saharanpur vs. ITO Ward-3(3)(3), Saharanpur

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

ITA 346/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalfiroz Alam, Income Tax Officer, Quila Nawab Ganj, Ward-3(3), Saharanapur. Chakrata Road, Vs. Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh-247001. Pan-Afspa9199P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/07/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.08.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10273096 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 28.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessment Was Reopened On The Basis Of The Information That Assessee Has Made Transaction Of Rs. 94,76, 190/- With A Company Who Was Indulged In Purchases & Sales Only On Papers Without Actual Moment Of Goods. Accordingly, The Order U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Was Passed & Notice U/S 148 Was Issued After Obtaining The Approval From The Competent Authorities. During The Firoz Alam Vs. Ito Course Of Reassessment Proceedings, The Assessee Never Appeared Nor Filed Any Reply Before The Ao And, Therefore, The Ao Proceed To Complete The Assessment Exparte By Making The Addition Of Rs.94,76,190/- As Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The Act Towards The Purchases Made From Two Parties.

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 221(1)Section 69C

about the initiation and completion of reassessment proceedings, and, therefore, the appeal was filed delayed by 163 days. He thus, requested for the condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the contentions by observing that the reasons stated by the assessee ... petition filed were the sufficient cause for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. 4. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein various grounds of appeal were taken which include the ground for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before

Hanif Osman Ravda, Sitlachawk Opp. Rehemani Masjid, Memanwad Memanwad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Porbandar, Gujarat

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

ITA 447/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.447/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Hanif Osman Ravda Vs. Ito Ward 2 (3), Sitla Chawk, Rehemani Masjid, Porbandar - 360575 Memanwad, Porbandar – 360575 (Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acepr8023N (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Assessment Year 2012-13, is barred by limitation by 68 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Learned DR for the revenue, opposed the prayer of the assessee for contention of delay. However ... learned Counsel adverted my attention to the reasons for condonation of delay, and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 68 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. A perusal of the reasons and sufficient cause explained by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, gives

Shri Bhavarsinh Anesinh Rajput, Village Meghpar, Tal. Anjar-Kutch vs. The ITO Ward 1, Gandhidham, Gandhidham Kutchh

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

ITA 418/RJT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.418 & 388/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Bhavarsinh Anesinh Rajpput Income Tax Officer, बनाम Survey No. 188, House No. 175/176 Ward-1, Gandhidham Meghpar, Anjar, Gujarat-370110 Vs. (Gujarat) Pan : Apepr3624N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kapil Sanghavi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Sanghavi, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Both these appeals filed by the assessee are barred by limitation by 923 days. The assessee moved a petition for condonation of delay requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition for condonation of delay are similar and identical in both appeals. The Ld Counsel ... condoned. 5. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. for the Revenue submitted that assessee has failed to prove sufficient cause for condonation of delay and medical urgency is not a sufficient cause to condone the delay. In the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation

Bhavarsinh Anesinh Rajput, Anjar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gandhidham

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

ITA 388/RJT/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Oct 2025AY 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Sanghavi, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Shardindu Prasad Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Patna

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

ITA 630/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 68 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “The appellant filed this appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna on 30/10/24 ... this 2nd appeal and accept the appeal for hearing. For that your undersigned appellant will remain ever grateful.” 1.2. Considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant

Dineshbhai Ravjibhai Dobariya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat

ITA 905/SRT/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kantι.Τ.Α. No.905/Srt/2025

Section 250

dismissed the appeal. However the same was filed beyond the period of limitation (i.e delay of 48 days) and consequently an application for condonation of delay has been filed and the same was rejected by Ld. CIT(A). 3. we have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused ... placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that assessee explained the reason for seeking condonation of delay before Ld. CIT(A). 3. Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view, the principles laid down

Zeba Ajmal Pothiwala, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2) (6), Surat

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

ITA 877/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 148Section 148ASection 250

very outset, we noticed that there is delay of 233 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: 2 Zeba Ajmal Pothiwala, Surat. 01. The Appellant is a Doctor

Bhaveshkumar Rajaram Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(1), Surat

ITA 62/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke. Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

before this Tribunal. 6. That there is a delay in filing the appeal of 49 days before this Tribunal. An application for condonation of delay supported with affidavit was file. We have considered the submissions made by Ld. AR on behalf of assessee and in absence of any contrary fact ... justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the provision of section 253(5) of the Act. We take a judicious view and condone the delay in filing this appeal. At the same time, as agreed by both sides and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair

Safety Education and Research Foundation, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 500/SRT/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Oct 2025

Section 12Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

before this Tribunal. There is a delay of 521 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal, the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit the relevant part is reproduce. "The Appellant Trust had received the order of rejection of approval ... could not give due advice to the assessee. That this reason for delay doesn't seems, to be an effective reason for condonation of delay. In order to avoid the miscarriage of justice we allow the application subject to deposit a cost of Rs, 5000 with prime minister relief fund

Shubhangi Pravin Nidhan, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 545/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assessee has filed an application and affidavit for condonation of delay explaining the sufficient cause. Whereas the facts mentioned in the Affidavit are reasonable and the learned D.R. has no specific objections. Accordingly, the delay

Shubhangi Pravin Nidhan, Nagpur vs. A.O., Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 535/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.Krishnakumar Gupta.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 50C

Surendra Jain, Ssangam Nagar, Indore vs. ITO Faceless Assessment Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, White Church Road

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 70/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Indore15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

days in both of these appeals and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay supported by affidavits. The contents of same are read over in court and it is prayed to condone delays in the light of Collector, Land ... such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice. The Ld. DR does not have serious objections against condonation of delay. Having regard to the averments in conations-applications and affidavits and taking into account the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we condone the delay

Surendra Jain, Indore vs. ITO Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 69/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Shilpa Malik, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer 3(3), Bhopal

ITA 346/IND/2025[2012-2013]Status: HeardITAT Indore15 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 50C

came to know of the passing of the “impugned order". Hence it was pleaded that there was a delay which may please be condoned. The delay was bonafide and was purely unintentional. If the delay is not condoned it would cause great hardship to the assessee. The Ld. DR appearing ... contended that the department has no objection if the delay is condoned as same is nominal. After hearing both sides and perusing the condonation of delay application with affidavit in support we are of the considered opinion that the delay should be condoned and accordingly we condone the same