“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

Jayshree Devi Ramji Gupta, Mumbai vs. ADIT, Mumbai

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

ITA 6048/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

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

Section 143(1)Section 40A(3)

causing the delay in filing the appeal. Though, the ld. D/R has strongly objected for the I.T.A. Nos. 6048 & 6047/Mum/2025 2 condonation of delay but we are convinced that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal on time. The delay is, therefore condoned

Jayshree Devi Ramji Gupta, Mumbai vs. ADIT, Mumbai

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

ITA 6047/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

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

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

Section 143(1)Section 40A(3)

Kalyani Mukand Limited, Mumbai Narimanpoint vs. ITO3(2)(3), Aaykar Bhavan

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

ITA 5064/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 250

outset, we noticed that there is delay of 3. 260 days in filing present appeal and in this regard detailed affidavit for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under: I, Dhanesh Kanaiyalal Goradia, son/daughter of Kanaiyalal Goradia, aged 60 years ... justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression" sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 6. From

Kalyani Mukand Limited, Nariman Point, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2)(3), Aaykar Bhavan

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

ITA 5063/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 250

Samir N Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4393/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankarsamir N. Shah, A/35, Jeevan Villa Chs Narayan, Dabholkar Road, Nepean Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai - 400006 ............... Appellant Pan: Aazps9084M V/S Income Tax Officer – 19(3), Piramal Chamber, Lower Parel, ……………… Respondent Mumbai - 400012

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

year 2012-13. 2 The present appeal is delayed by 250 days. Alongwith the appeal, the 2. assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, which is duly supported by his affidavit, submitting as follows: - “6. I being aggrieved by the said order has filed appeal before ... Order. However, to avoid any legal complications I am swearing this Affidavit confirming the above facts for submitting the same alongwith petition for condonation of delay.” 3. Having considered the submissions of the assessee, we are of the considered view that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from

Gulshan Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2242/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194HSection 250Section 40Section 44ASection 69A

required no separate adjudication. 8. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.” 4. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (‘AR’) prayed for condonation of delay of 379 days in filing this appeal. He submitted that the earlier Ld. Counsel looking after the tax matter of the assessee got critically ... properly in time. An affidavit of the appellant assessee narrating the reason for filing belated appeal was brought on the record. 5. The condonation of delay in filing this appeal is on the record. It was submitted that the delay was not due to any negligence or lack

Divesh Verma, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad

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

ITA 5961/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Divesh Verma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-804, Veracious Vani Vilas Ward-1(1), Apartments, Doddaballapur Faridabad Main Road, Yelahanka, (Haryana) Bengalure-560064, Karnataka Pan: Aehpv6594H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Balaja V, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

26AS by then Ld. AO vide order dated 04.01.2020. 3. Against order dated 04.01.2020 of Ld. Assessing Officer, the appellant/assessee filed application for condonation of delay of 144 days in filing and appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 17.10.2024. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee preferred ... shall apply." Ground No.3: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of the Appeal against Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, even when the delay in filing of the Appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Odia Samaj, New Delhi

In the result Cross objections raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 5638/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 194CSection 194JSection 2(15)Section 80G

cross objections filed by assessee is time barred by 27 days. The learned AR during the course of hearing has made request for condonation of delay in view of the application dated 09.07.2025supported with affidavit of Settlor of assessee’s trust and the Ld. DR has not seriously disputed

Dilip Kantilal Kubavat, Porbandar vs. ITO WD 2(3), Porbandar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.522/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2016-17 Dilip Kantilal Kubavat Ito बनाम/ Prop. Vijay Dairy Farm, Ward 2 (3), Vs Near Ramdhun S V P Road, Porbandar 360575 Porbandar - 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Azfpk8009B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /10/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.03.2025, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not To Consider The Basic Fact That The Assessee Has Gifted The Property To His Sister In Law (Younger Brother'S Wife) That Is, To A Relative For A Consideration Dilip Kantilal Kubavat

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

assessee for assessment year (A.Y.) 2016-17 is barred by limitation by 80 days. The assessee has moved a petition for condonation of delay requesting the Bench to condone the delay. Learned Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons for delay, stating that order passed by the CIT(A) never ... kindly be condoned. 4. Learned DR for the revenue submitted that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. The law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied

Jaiswal & Sons Liquor Business Consortium, Gondia vs. ITO Ward (1), Gondia

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

ITA 529/NAG/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalejaiswal & Sons Liquor Business Consortium, Babuji Ki Kutiya Restaurant, Fulchur Naka ……………. Appellant Gondia -441601 Maharashtra. Pan–Aakej6869N V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–1, Gondia-441601, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Dairykumar Sachchindnand Jaiswal.A.R. Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Dairykumar Sachchindnand Jaiswal.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 40

appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse 2 Jaiswal & Sons Liquor Business Consortium ITA no.529/NAG./2025 has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the sufficient cause. Whereas the facts mentioned in the application are reasonable and the learned D.R. has no specific objections. Accordingly, the delay

Jalendra Krishnarao Poyam, Amravati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Amravati

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

ITA 515/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalejalendra Krishnarao Poyam, Prop. Nilanjay Services Akola -444701, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan–Amxpp2443H V/S Dcit, Saturna, ……………. Respondent Amravati-444601, Maharashtra, Assessee By:Shri.Ratan Sharma.Ar Revenue By :Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha. Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Ratan Sharma.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha. Sr.DR

Section 40

submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assessee has filed an 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

Eknath Shankarrao Kawarkhe, Maharashtra vs. Ngp-W-(102)(2), Nagpur

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

ITA 410/NAG/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleeknath Shankarrao Kawarkhe, 1, Jaipur, B.O. Washim -444507, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra, Pan-Cippk2836K V/S I T O Ward 10(2), Bsnl Rtc Building, ……………. Respondent Civil Lines,Nagpur-444000, Maharashtra.

For Appellant: Ms.Madhavi Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

delay of 61 days 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/ application are reasonable and the learned D.R. has no specific objections. Accordingly

Deepika Ravjani, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Jaipur

11. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing

ITA 1239/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 13BSection 250

this regard, Ld. AR has referred to the reasons given in column no. 15 of Form 35, presented before Learned CIT(A) seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal there. 5. As is available from column no. 15 of Form 35, the assessee claimed before Learned ... appellant has drawn our addition to affidavit dated 24.11.2022, submitted by the assessee before Learned CIT(A) for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Ld. AR has also drawn our attention to copy of agreement arrived at between the assessee-appellant and her husband Shri Ravi Bijawat

Vinod Kumar Ajmera, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Jaipur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1228/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, C.A. (through V.CFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT a

Section 10(10)Section 143(1)

presented on 03.09.2025 i.e. much beyond prescribed period of limitation for946 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee-appellant filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, Ld. AR for the appellant-applicant has firstly advanced arguments on the point of condonation of delay

Kamal Singh, Bharatpur vs. ITO WD 1, Bharatpur

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

ITA 1106/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CA (Thru: VC)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

Bench for 3 SHRI KAMAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD -1, BHARATPUR which the assessee has filed an application dated 04-08-2025 for condonation of delay giving therein following reasoning. 04-08-2025 ‘’Sub: Application for condonation of delay in filing of Appeal against the order passed by CIT (Appeals ... circumstances mentioned above, since there were "sufficient cause" your honors may be pleased to consider the prayer of the Applicant for condonation of delay. The facts and circumstances as mentioned above involve the question of "substantial justice", delay deserves to be condoned in the overall interest of justice