“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

Jagannathan Krishnaveni, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kumbakonam

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3617/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3617/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 250Section 69B

There was a delay of 201 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. The assessee is in appeal before the tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is delay ... days in filing the appeal before the tribunal and the assessee filed the petition seeking condonation of delay. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before

Abc Gold Palace, Tiruvarur vs. ITO, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

ITA 2463/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2460, 2461, 2462 & 2463/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 M/S. Abc Gold Palace, 14-A, Mela Veethi, Thiruthuraipoondi, Tiruvarur – 614 713. Pan: Aanfa 5950Eе (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(3), Chennai (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Dr. Abhishek Murali, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit : 25.02.2026 : 25.02.2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-20, All Dated 26.05.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant

Section 132Section 132ASection 148Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 153C(3)Section 250Section 3

2463/Chny/2025 2. There is a delay of 35 days in filing the appeals. The assessee has filed an affidavit along with petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of appeals. On perusal of the reasons stated, we are of the view that no latches ... attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of these appeals. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits. 3. At the outset, we notice that assessee has filed additional grounds raising legal issue. The legal issue raised

Sree Jeshta Laxmi Welfare and Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bangalore

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

ITA 1803/BANG/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2026-27 M/S. Sree Jeshta Laxmi Welfare & Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Charitable Trust, Unity Building Annexe, No.50, Karnataka Layout, Mission Road, 2Nd Cross, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 079. Pan : Aakts 9479 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Rajeev Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 12A

days as it is filed on 14.08.2025 against the order received by the assess on 20.03.2025. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay stating that originally the Trust was registered under section 12A of the Act since 02.12.2011. Due to the change in the provision, the assessee applied ... further advised that time limit for filing of the appeal has already lapsed, the application is also required to be made for condonation of delay. Therefore, on that basis, the appeal was filed on 14.08.2025. Thus, it caused a delay of 86 days which is for the reason that assessee

Meda Lakshminarayana Setty Naveen Kumar, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mysore

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

ITA 1795/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2018-19 Mr. Meda Lakshminarayana Setty Vs. Ito, Naveen Kumar, Circle – 1(1) & Tps, Fat No.305, Bougainvilla, Sankalp Mysore. Central Park, Yadavagiri, Mysore – 570 009. Pan : Ablpn 5943 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 270A

against the appellate order received by him on 20.05.2025 thereby causing a delay of 18 days. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay stating that the Page 2 of 6 date of receipt of the order is assumed as the date of receipt of order. The reasons stated

Azad Ispat India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1342/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2013-14 M/S. Azad Ispat India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.1, 2Nd Cross, N R Road Ward – 1(1)(1), Slaughter House Road Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 002. Pan : Aagca 9896 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Venkatesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. Saravanan, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

which may be condoned. 3. The learned Authorized Representative (AR) Mr. Venkatesh Kumar, Advocate, vehemently reiterated the facts stated in the petition for condonation of delay. 4. The learned Departmental Representative (learned DR) Shri. K. Saravanan, Additional CIT, vehemently submitted that the delay is not for sufficient cause, hence

Shree Goregaon Digamber Jain Mandir Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO-Exem. Ward-1(3), Mumbai

In the result Assessee’s Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8596/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: The Ld. Commissioner, However, With A Delay Of 790 Days, In Filing The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 250

that the application filed by the Assessee does not disclose ‘sufficient cause’ for any part of the delay, ultimately rejected the application for condonation of delay and in effect the appeal filed by the Assessee as time barred. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee at the outset has submitted ... that before deciding the application for condonation of delay, the Ld. Commissioner failed to issue any notice and/or has not afforded any opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 5. Though, the Ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee qua condonation of delay, however not the factual aspect

Smt Revati Narayn Jangam, Mumbai vs. ITO42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8112/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Pratik ShindeFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- DR

Section 147Section 271A

assessee in the assessment proceeding, we expect the learned First Appellate Authority to take a liberal view in the matter of condonation of delay and decide the appeals on merit after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes

Smt Revati Narayan Jangam, Mumbai vs. ITO-42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8111/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Pratik ShindeFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- DR

Section 147Section 271A

Smt Revati Narayan Jangam, Mumbai vs. ITO-42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8109/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Pratik ShindeFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- DR

Section 147Section 271A

Mr. Revati Narayan Jangam, Mumbai vs. ITO-42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8108/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Pratik ShindeFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- DR

Section 147Section 271A

Smt Revati Narayan Jangam, Mumbai vs. ITO-42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8107/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Pratik ShindeFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- DR

Section 147Section 271A

M/S Nam Technologies Priavte Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT -14(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8031/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tarang Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, SR. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68

back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with the direction to the Assessee to file a formal petition for condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit and relevant documentary evidence, before the ld CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) shall evaluate the sufficiency of the cause

Biswambar Pati, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 45/CTK/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiabiswambar Pati, D.C.I.T., Plot No. 3454, At Palasuni, P.O.- Circle-1(1), Vs. Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar-751010 Bhubaneswar. (Odisha) Pan No. Bnvpp 8160 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 11 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false ... object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay Biswambar Pati Vs DCIT of 11 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer

Geeta Baid, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer - Jeypore, Jeypore

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

ITA 756/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Sr. DR

appeal of the assessee is delayed by 295 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with medical documents stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false ... object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 295 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee

ITO, W-1(3), Vaishali, Hajipur vs. Shiv Sharan Singh, Hajipur

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

ITA 524/PAT/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 211 days. The Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the appeal order was passed on 19.02.2025; however, the appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A) was not visible on the portal ... this, there has been a delay in filing of the appeal which is inadvertent. The Revenue has requested the Bench to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. After perusing the same, we are satisfied that the Revenue had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented

Kamla Devi Jaydayal Jain Private Limited, Muzaffarpur vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 19/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 250

Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 15 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that assessee is of old age and was not well during the relevant period and due to medical treatment and health issues, the appellate ... order and its consequences were inadvertently overlooked by the assessee. The assessee requested the Bench to condone the delay. After perusing the same, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from ITA No.: 19/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kamla Devi Jaydayal Jain

Young Engineers Education Society, Kurkheda vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 404/NAG/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 254(1)Section 80G(5)

there is delay of 262 days in ITA No. 404/Nag/2025 and 123 days in ITA No. 279/Nag/2025. She has filed separate application for condonation of delay in both the appeals. The delay is neither intentional or deliberate. The trust is working in remote area of District Gadchirauli. The Young Engineers ... 279/Pun/2025 has not power to change the nature of application. The ld CIT-DR for the revenue opposed the plea of assessee for condonation of delay. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the record. Firstly, we are considering the plea