“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

Amitkumar Ramkishorbhai Sharma, Morbi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Morbi

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

ITA 462/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 69

erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The Id. AO has erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- under section 69 of the Income ... Tribunal, for Assessment Year 2017-18, is barred by limitation by 70 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that because of the mistake of the tax consultant of the assessee, the delay of 70 days occurred

Arjan Lila Goraniya, Porbandar vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Porbandar

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

ITA 378/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainibefore Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.378/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) Arjan Lila Goraniya Vs. Ito Ward 2 (4), Inajiya Vadi Vistar, Porbandar - 360575 Porbandar Bhojeshwar S.O, Porbandar Bhojeshwar S.O, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ ./Pan/Gir No.: Bbwpg1554P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld

Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Bench days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The The Learned Counsel for the assessee, explained the Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons for such delay stating that reasons for such delay ... assessee cannot be penalized for same. This can be considered as for same. This can be considered as reasonable cause to condone to condone the delay. I note that the reasons given in the the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would

Gajanand Financial Consultancy Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

appeal.” 3. There is a delay of 267 days in filing the instant appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed application seeking condonation of delay which is also supported by a sworn affidavit, the contents of which are extracted herein below:– “1. In the case of deponent/assessee company Principal ... advise of new counsel deponent/assessee is filing this appeal on 22/02/2025 alongwith delay of 294 days which may kindly be condoned. The delay be kindly condoned in the interest of justice as appeal be heard and decided on merits. 7. However due to above reason the assessee is being filed

Kundoly Krishnankutty Sunil, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thrissur

ITA 547/COCH/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Sept 2025AY 2016-2017

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 80C

Assessment Year 2016-2017. - 2. The present appeal was delayed by 86 days. In the application seeking condonation of delay it has been stated that the delay was inadvertently caused on account of the impugned order having been received in the spam folder. The Assessee only got knowledge ... income tax filing of the Assessee. After hearing both the sides and taking into consideration the explanation offered by the Assessee, we condone the delay of 86 days in filing the present appeal and proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Assessee in the present appeal. - 3. The Assessee

Kanhaiya Lal Khetan, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi/ ITO-3(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 227/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 144Section 147Section 253(3)Section 69A

been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year ... admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay

Sher Singh, Sangrur vs. Income Tax Officer, Sangrur

ITA 749/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Soni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 11BSection 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 69ASection 69a

days in filing of the appeal. During the proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay along with an Affidavit, which is reproduced as under:- 3. We have considered the reasoning given by the Assessee in the affidavit and inclined ... condone the delay. 4. The ld. DR did not have any objection for this condonation of delay. 5. The brief facts are that the assessee, an individual engaged in agricultural activities and sale of milk, deposited a sum of ₹14,75,600/- in various bank accounts during the financial year

Sukhminder Singh, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the order of the Ld

ITA 278/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singhla, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

perused the material available on the record. A perusal of the appellate order clearly shows that though the appeal was admitted after condonation of delay, the assessee thereafter failed to file any written submissions despite repeated notices. The Ld. CIT(A) has recorded that as many as six opportunities were

The New Education Society, Thane vs. CIT-Exemption, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1324/PUN/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं./Ita Nos.1323 & 1324/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year :- The New Education Society, V The Commissioner Of 1, Opp Sai Arcade, Netaji S. Income Tax, Exemption, Chowk, G S Pammani Marg, Pune. Ulhasnagar, Thane – 421004. Pan: Aaatt7011L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ms. Sailee Gujarathi Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S.12A R.W.S 12Ab & 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Both Dated 27.01.2024 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 3

grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1324/PUN/2025 are allowed. 16. To sum up, both appeals of the assessee are allowed. Condonation of Delay: There was delay of 421 days in filling appeal before this Tribunal. We have studied the condonation petition, reasons and we are convinced that

The New Education Society, Thane vs. CIT-Exemption, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1323/PUN/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Uday Lapsia Legal Heir of Late Mrs Madhuri Kirti Lapsia, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 27(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 576/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Late Mrs. Madhuri Kirti Lapsia, The Asst. Cit-27(2), Through Uday Lapsia Legal Heir Vashi Navi Mumbai-400703. 43, Bharat Tirth Chs, V N Purav Vs. Marg, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaapl 7290 D Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. M. Subramniam

might be condoned. 3. On the contrary, the Ld. Department On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) al Representative (DR) objected for condonation of delay. objected for condonation of delay. Uday Lapsia Legal Heir of Late Mrs. Uday Lapsia Legal Heir of Late Mrs. 3 Madhuri Kirti Lapsia

Avinash Ashok Chavan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 4531/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250

4530/Mum/2025, A.Y 2012-13 3. There is delay of 258 days in filing present appeal and in this regard an affidavit for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under: I Avinash Ashok Chavan, aged 35 years, being an individual would ... filing before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of A.Y.2012-13 giving the reasons for delay in filing of an appeal and condonation of delay. 3- I had received the order of ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1067342243(1) as on 06/08/2024, when I was in Sindhudurg. 4- The appeal

Avinash Ashok Chavan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 4530/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250

Manju Bherulal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO - 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4303/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 253

very outset, I noticed that there is delay of 303 days in filing present appeal and in this regard an affidavit for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under: Affidavit for Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal before ... appeal before your honour. Accordingly, the appellant has filed an appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai, on 30.06.2025, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay stating the above facts. 9) That, as per the provisions of section 253 of the Act, the appeal before the Tribunal was required

Mahakali Ayyappa Seva Sangh, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem. Ward 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3297/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250

same was beyond period of limitation and Ld. CIT(A) reached to the conclusion that assessee had no sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Whereas 2 Mahakali Ayyappa Seva Sangh, Mumbai. Ld. AR relied upon the contents of the application for seeking condonation of delay ... belief, and nothing material has been concealed. 9.2 I understand that this affidavit is filed in support of the Trust's application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 9.3 sincerely regret that my health condition contributed to the delay in the Trust's compliance matters and respectfully submit

Rp Panchal HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-31(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2452/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 250

outset, we noticed that there is delay of 2. 404 days in filing present appeal and in this regard an affidavit for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under: 2 RP Panchal HUF, Mumbai. I, Mr. RP Panchal, an Indian ... case. 13. I say that the reasons for the delay in filing appeal are also explained in detail in the prayer for condonation of delay being filed by the company before the Hon'ble Tribunal and I affirm the facts stated therein to be true and correct

Mr. Rohit Vallabhdas Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 32(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1910/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Rohit Vallabhdas Shah Income Tax Officer, B-303, Dwarka Apartment Ward 32(3)(2), Vs. Daulat Nagar, Borivali, Mumbai Mumbai – 400066 (Pan: Accps2392B) (Assessee) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Gunjan Kakkad, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit-32, Mumbai, Vide Order Dated 25.03.2019 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer, Ward-32(3)(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 17.06.2016 For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order By Exercising Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Failed To Appreciate That The View Of The Assessing Officer Could Have Been Substituted In Exercise Of Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The View Taken By The Assessing Officer Was A Plausible View & Thus, The Commissioner Has Erred In Invoking The Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act. 4. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Could Not Have Set Aside The Assessment Order.

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

noted that Shri Gunjan Kakkad, Advocate represented the assessee in the course of hearing held on 22.07.2025, who extensively argued for condonation of delay of 2121 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. He placed strong reliance on the affidavit filed by the assessee notarised on 16.07.2025. Since ... Having failed at all stages to establish his case, assessee is now before the Tribunal, contesting the revisionary proceeding with the prayer for condonation of delay of almost six years. There was nothing which prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal within time. Assessee choosing the other channel

Sodexo India Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. 13(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1639/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT D/R

Section 43B

before its conclusion.” I.T.A. No. 1639/Mum/2025 2 3. There is delay in filing of the appeal. The assessee furnished an affidavit requesting for condonation of delay justifying the cause for delay. We have carefully considered the contents of the affidavit and are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient

Shri Jigar Kishor Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

ITA 107/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Jigar Kishor Mehta, The Ito-41(4)(2), 50/5, Dhanji Street, 1St Agairy Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Lane, Masjid Bunder, Vs. Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 003. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afopm 9328 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Khandelwal, Adv

Section 2(22)(e)

this application for condonation of Hence, the appellant is making this application for condonation of Hence, the appellant is making this application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. delay in filing of appeal. I respectfully submits that said delay has risen due to reasons I respectfully submits that ... totally relying on external consultant for the same. was totally relying on external consultant for the same. Therefore, this application submitted for condonation of delay be Therefore, this application submitted for condonation of delay be Therefore, this application submitted for condonation of delay be allowed in the i allowed

Resham Gramodyog Sadan, Champa, at/Post- Umreli, Via-Champa, Tahsil-Barpali, Korba vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Korba (C.G.), Mahanadi Complex, Niharika Road

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

ITA 533/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 533/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Resham Gramodyog Sadan Village : Umreli Main Road, Champa, Janjgir-Champa, Korba-495 677 Pan: Aacar9348D ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 249(3)

Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, we condone the delay of 308 days involved in the captioned appeal. 6. At the very outset, it is noted that there was delay of 1434 days ... direct evidence furnished by the revenue regarding any malafide or deliberate conduct of the assessee. The reasonableness of the reasons for condonation of delay as per Section 249(3) of the Act before the Ld. CIT(Apeals)/NFAC had duly been fulfilled by the assessee. Hence, such delay is condoned

Arham Enterprise, Rajkot vs. ITO, TDS-1, Rajkot

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

ITA 148/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr

Section 206

barred by limitation of 152 days. The Ld. AR of the he Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by led an application for condonation of delay, supported by led an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The application for delay ... lower authority for proper adjudication. The Ld. DR for the revenue did not object to the prayer for to the prayer for condonation of delay and prayer for one opportunity condonation of delay and prayer for one opportunity granted to the assessee to the assessee for hearing. 8. Brief facts