“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

Basantilal Tarba, Rajasthan vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-3(1)(2), Surat

In the result, the ground of appeal raised in this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 512/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.512/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Bansntilal Tarba Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), बनाम/ 429/1023, Sundarnagar, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs. Ahimsa Circle, Bhilwara, Surat-395 001 Rajasthan- 311 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afipt 1037 P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ca राज" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

filing of the 1st appeal; 2.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing of the 1st appeal of 495 days and ought to have considered the reasonable cause and bona fide reasons that had resulted ... note that delay in filing appeal by the appellant is not intentional and deliberate. In view of the same, the request for condonation of delay is allowed and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case are that as per the information received from DDIT

Shreyansh Anilkumar Shah, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5, Navsari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 727/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.727/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 (Hybrid Hearing) Shreyansh Anilkumar Shah Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, बनाम/ 504, Rushabh Residency, Navsari, Income T Ax Office, Vs. Maneklal Road, Near Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 Telephone Exchange, Navsari- 445 396 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aiqps 6441 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 22/07/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 26.07.2023 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeal [In Short, The ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 27.10.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeal Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Reopening Assessment U/S.147 By Issuing Notice U/S.148 Of The It Act, 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.32,53,637/- U/S 68 Of The Act On Account Of Alleged Unexplained Cash Credits.

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 226(3)Section 250Section 68

note that delay in filing appeal by the appellant is not intentional and deliberated. In view of the same, the request for condonation of delay is allowed and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income

Ramesh Nanjundiah Devaryasamudram, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1), Bhopal

The appeal is hereby DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN

ITA 256/IND/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2010-11 Ramesh Nanjundiah Ito 2(1) Devaryasamudram, Bhopal 101, Ground Floor, बनाम/ Plot No.7, Pooja Vihar, Vs. Sirsi Road Bishnawal, Jhotwara, S.O. Jaipur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adupd0388H Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

There is a delay of 282 days in filing this appeal. Ld. AR for assessee drew our attention to the Application for Condonation of delay filed by assessee duly supported by affidavit. The asesseee’s application reads as under: “Before Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Sir/Madam, Reference: Ramesh ... Nanjundiah Devarayasamudram (PAN: ADUPD0388H) Subject: Prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal It is respectfully submitted that there has been a delay of appeal .... days in filing the present For AY 2010-11, an order was passed under section 143(3) by ITO-2(1), Bhopal

Krashak Sahyog Sansthan, Begamganj vs. CIT(Exemption), Bhopal

ITA 189/IND/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

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

Section 80G(5)

against impugned order dated 23.10.2023 and therefore time- barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp. The affidavit is scanned and re-produced below: Krashak Sahyog Sansthan ITA No. 189/Ind/2025

Raghav Dangayach, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(1) Jpr, Jaipur

15. As a result, the application seeking condonation of delay is hereby dismissed

ITA 993/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Natani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 250

same having been filed 273 days after the prescribed period of limitation. Along with the appeal, the assessee filed an application seeking condonation of delay. 4. Arguments have been advanced on the issue of condonation of delay of 273 days. 5. Ld. AR for the appellant-applicant has submitted that ... 144/2023, registered under Sections 422, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. 13. As claimed by the applicant himself in the application seeking condonation of delay, his father was earlier sent to jail on 13.08.2018 and released from Jail on 04.12.2018. But, notably, it was much prior even

Jaipur Sahakari Kraya Vikraya Samiti, Jaipur vs. I.T.O. Ward 5(2), Jaipur

ITA 991/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025

Bench: The Registry On 30-06-2025. By Way Of First Mentioned Appeal, Assessee Has Challenged Order Dated 18-03-2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2018-19, Whereby Appeal Filed By Assessee Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-03-2021 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Has Been Dismissed, As Not 2

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80P

been upheld, by affirming addition to the tune of Rs.41,08,159/- 3. Alongwith both the above captioned appeals, an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed. 4. Record reveals that the Registry made a deficiency note that each appeal was barred by limitation, having been filed 30 days ... after prescribed period of limitation. 5. On the applications seeking condonation of delay, (which according to the assessee is of 43 days), ld. AR for the applicant society has submitted that employee of the applicant society Shri Tej Singh remained on leave from

Jaipur Sahakari Krya Vikraya Samiti, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 5(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 990/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80P

Anil Kumar Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 834/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kanodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250

delayed by 21 days. The assessee has filed an application submitting therein the reasons for delay in filing the appeal and prayed for condonation of delay. In support of the application, the assessee has also filed an Affidavit duly sworn in before the Notary, Jaipur dated 21st ... condonation of delay, which is being reproduced hereunder :- BEFORE THE HON’BLE MEMBERS OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR. Affidavit for Condonation of Delay 3 Anil Kumar Meena, Jaipur. I, Anil Kumar Meena, son of Shri Debu Ram Meena, aged about 56 years, residing at 12/391, Sector

Siyaram City Cabs Ltd., Jaipur vs. Itd Ward 6(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 661/JPR/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40

there is delay of 2581 day in filing the appeal for which the assessee has filed an application dated 27-03-2025 for condonation of delay, giving therein following reasons. ‘’SUB: PRAYER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY U/S 253(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ("ITA") Hon'ble Sir/Madam, Siyaram ... provisions of Section 253(5) of the ITA, if there is sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal, Hon'ble ITAT may condone such delay. It is submitted that the delay was not deliberate. 9. In view of above, it is humbly prayed that delay in filing of appeal

Siyaram City Cabs Ltd., Jaipur vs. Itd Ward 6(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 572/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

there is delay of 680 day in filing the appeal for which the assessee has filed an application dated 10-08-2024 for condonation of delay, giving therein following reasons. ‘’SUB: PRAYER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY U/S 253(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ("ITA") Hon'ble Sir/Madam ... time. The compounded effects of these challenges left us with no option but to seek the Hon'ble Tribunal's indulgence in condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 5 SIYARAM CITY CABS LTD VS ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR 8. I assure you that this delay was purely

Amit Tak, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1), Jaipur

11. In the view of the above discussion, we find that the applicant/assessee has failed to establish any sufficient cause in late filing of the appeal i

ITA 570/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Mundhra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 138Section 420Section 482

delay. With the application, the applicant has filed his own affidavit. 3. Firstly, arguments have been advanced only on the point of condonation of delay. Heard. File perused. 4. Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted that the assessee could not file appeal before this Appellate Tribunal within prescribed period ... applicant, and five others, arrayed therein as respondents, and therefore, this incomplete document is of no assistance to the applicant so far as condonation of delay is concerned. 4 Amit Tak , Jaipur. 7. The other document to which our attention has been drown by Ld. AR for the applicant

Kaushik D Bhagat (Patel), Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 242/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

with Form no.36. The Registry had issued two letters on 20.02.2025 and thereafter on 27.02.2025 to the assessee to file the affidavit for condoning the delay Kaushik D Bhagat (Patel) vs. ITO Page 2 of 5 in filing the present appeal. However, no condonation application has been filed ... taxmann.com 257 (SC) that there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. We also do not find any merit in the grounds raised by the assessee. The fact that the assessee had disclosed agricultural income of Rs.20

Shri Krishna Enterprise, Nadiad vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1419/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Shri Krishna Enterprise Vs. The Ito, Ward-1 (Partnership Firm) Nadiad. Gf, Snri Krishna Palace Dabhan Chokdi, Dabhan Nadiad, Gujarat. Pan : Acwfs 6389 J (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR

Section 144

Assessing Officer of AO”] u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 17.10.2019. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the outset, it is noted that the appeal has been filed belatedly with a delay of 344 days. The assessee filed an affidavit

Central Ordnance Depot, Pune vs. ITO TDS, Ward-1, Pune

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

ITA 1446/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, lower authorities erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal without appreciating the facts of the case. Your appellant prays for condonation of delay and granting an opportunity of hearing ... preferred appeal(s) before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a delay of about 2455. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in limine by not condoning the delay. Now the assessee is in appeal(s) before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal