“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

Orissa State Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 42/CTK/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaorissa State Co-Operative Agricultural D.C.I.T. & Rural Development Bank, Circle-1(1), Vs. A/34, J.N. Marg, Kharvel Nagar, Unit-3, Bhubaneshwar. Bhubaneshwar-751001 (Odisha) Pan No. Aabat 0086 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 316 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in the form of 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 of 316 Orissa State Co-op Agricultural & Rural Devl. Bank Vs DCIT 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 assessee

Sate Bank of India Officers Multi Purpose Co-Operative Society Orissa Limited, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 18/CTK/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 270A

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 02 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay 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 02 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted by the Id. AR that the quantum addition for the A.Y. 2019- 20 in ITA No. 543/Ctk/2025

State Bank of India, Baloni Branch, Baloni vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 765/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiastate Bank Of India, J.C.I.T. (Tds), Baloni Branch, Keonjhar, Bhubaneshwar. Vs. Kendujhar-758037 (Odisha) Pan No. Aaacs 8577 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 266 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 of 266 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. SBI Vs JCIT(TDS) 4. At the time of hearing before us, it was submitted by the ld. AR that

Gram Vikas, Mohuda vs. Income Tax Officer, Berhampur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 678/CTK/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiagram Vikas, I.T.O., Mohuda, B.O. Narsinghpur, Ganjam, Exemption Ward, Vs. Ganjam-760002 (Odisha) Berhampur. Pan No. Aaajg 0107 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 154

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 559 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 of 559 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. Gram Vikas Vs ITO 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the addition as made in the assessment order

Petanity and Animal Rehabilitators Foundation, Chandrapur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 165/NAG/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Petanity & Animal Rehabilitators Cit(Exemption), Pune Foundation Chandrapur Vs Room No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Ito, Pmt Sagar Enterprises, Madhuban Plaza, Building, Shankar Seth Road, Near Mount Convent, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411037. Chandrapur, Maharashtra – 442401. [Pan: Aagap6876N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhavesh Moriyani, Advocate Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 12ASection 254(1)

assessee fairly submits that there is delay of about 78 days in filing present appeal. The assessee has already filed application for condonation of delay which is supported with affidavit of Devendra Odal Rapelli. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee is a small trust in a remote ... other hand, learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Departmental Representative (ld. CIT–DR) for the Revenue opposed the plea of condonation of delay raised by assessee. On merit, the ld. CIT–DR submits that assessee has given an opportunity to file details about object and activities. The assessee failed to furnish

Rohtash Singla Jimmi, Punjab vs. ITO, Ward 1, Barnala

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

ITA 594/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported By An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Late Filing. In The Affidavit, The Assessee Has Stated That He Is A Physically Handicapped Person Suffering From Hearing & Speech Disability Since Birth & Is Entirely Dependent Upon Others For Handling His Income Tax Matters. It Has Further Been Explained That His Earlier Accountant, Who Was Looking After The Tax Affairs, Left The Job & Did Not Inform The Assessee Regarding The Appellate Proceedings And, Because Of His Disability, The Assessee Could Not Monitor The Proceedings & Came To Know About The Appellate Order Only Later When He Consulted Another Person After Receipt Of Subsequent Penalty Related Communication. It Has Also Been Submitted That The Delay Was Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But Occurred

For Appellant: Shri Nagesh Behl, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

outset, there is a delay of 142 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for late filing. In the affidavit, the assessee has stated that he is a physically handicapped person

Moonlight Jewellers, Coimbatore vs. ITO Ncw 1 (4), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4092/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 4088/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Mahasin Mallick, The Income Tax Officer, Madhina Nagar, 6Th Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 1(4), Thirumarai Nagar, Coimbatore Podanur, Coimbatore – 641 023. Pan: Alfpm 2291K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 4092/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Moonlight Jewellers, The Income Tax Officer, Madhina Nagar, 6Th Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 1(4), Thirumarai Nagar, Coimbatore Podanur, Coimbatore – 641 023. Pan: Aaufm 9845M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Prasad, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 250

days in filing the appeal in ITA No.4092/CHNY/2025 before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit along with petition for condonation of delay stating therein the following reasons for belated filing of the appeal:- “The appellant firm submits that the partners of the firm are not well educated ... view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 4. At the very outset, we notice that the orders of First Appellate Authority

Mahasin Mallick, Coimbatore vs. ITO Ncw 1 (4), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4088/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Prasad, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 250

Ashaben Babulal Gala, Mumbai vs. ITO 41(4)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee's appeal is allowed on legal aspect

ITA 8633/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2017-18 Ashabenbabulal Gala, National Faceless Centre, C-536, Panbai Nagar, Nfac, New Delhi, Shreeprastha 2Ndroad, Near Ito – 41(4)(1), Vs. Viva Super Market, Kautilyabhavan, Mumbai. Nalasopara (West), Umrale, Palghar, Maharashtra - 401203. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afzpg 0653 H Present For: Assessee By : Shri. Vikrant Vora Revenue By : Shri. Surendra Mohan, (Sr.D.R) Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2026 O R D E R Per :Narender Kumar Choudhry:

For Appellant: Shri. Vikrant VoraFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan, (SR.D.R)

Section 250

health and financial constraints, after her husband’s death. Therefore, considering the reasons stated by the Assessee for the condonation of delay, which are otherwise supported with duly sworn Affidavit, as genuine, bonafide and unintentional and for substantial justice, we are inclined to condone the delay. Thus, the delay

Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaik, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 7339/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Akshay JainFor Respondent: Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR

Section 245

counsel for the assessee submitted that the Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the appeal in against Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the appeal Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned ... maintainable. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings in quantum proceedings is reproduced as under: “5.1. Condonation of delay: 5.1. Condonation of delay: The appellant has mentioned in the statement of facts that he came The appellant has mentioned in the statement of facts that

Naushad Ali Abdul Haq Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 7338/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Akshay JainFor Respondent: Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR

Section 245

Noorul Hasan Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 25(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7207/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Haria (Virtually appeared) &For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, SR. DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

there was a delay of 210 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the said appeal in limine. The Ld. Counsel submitted that penalty proceedings were initiated in the quantum assessment ... legally tenable explanation. It is a settled position of law that ignorance of law cannot be treated as sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Where law demands agility and sincerity, neglect and laxity are not to be rewarded. Ignorance of law can never be advanced as an excuse for escaping

M/S Ambah Co-Operative Marketing Society, Morena vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Morena

In the result, both the revenue appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 584/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 249(4)Section 250Section 271

parties. 4. At the very outset, it is noticed that this first appeal was dismissed upon rejection of assessee’s request for the condonation of delay caused in filing the first appeal before Ld. CIT(A). It transpires from the perusal of records that first appeal was filed before ... days. However, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Learned CIT(A) was, however did not find any sufficient cause to condone the said delay caused in filing

M/S Ambah Co-Operative Marketing Society, Morena vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Morena

In the result, both the revenue appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 583/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 249(4)Section 250Section 271

Siddhi Vinayak Shiksha Prasar Evam Samaj Kalyan Samiti, Gwalior vs. CIT(Exemption), Bhopal

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

ITA 579/AGR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iv)

31st March, 2022 and latest circular no. 6/2023 dated 24th May, 2023 of the CBDT, we do not have any option but to condone the delay in filing application in Form No. 10AB, under s. 80G(5) of the Act. We note that Co- ordinate Bench of Jodhpur ... only the issue/terminology of "whichever is earlier" which is applicable to new trust which have created recently, and it does not deal with condonation of delay CIT (Exemption) Bhopal in case of old trust who made the application before learned CIT(Exemption) very late, that is, the issue mention

Siddhi Vinayak Shiksha Prasar Evam Samaj Kalyan Samiti, Gwalior vs. CIT(Extemption), Bhopal

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

ITA 578/AGR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iv)

Anand Kumar Jain, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Agra

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 345/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Anand Kumar Jain Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 30/41, Chhipitola Ward-1 (1)(1), Agra Agra Pan :Aarpj3189L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gaurav Goyal , Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 Order

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 44ASection 68

filing the appeal before ITAT. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee brought to my notice. The application for condonation of delay and affidavit filed by the assessee. It is submitted that the delay is due to unfortunate demise of Sh. P. N. Agarwal, the counsel

Shri. Jaswant Singh S/O. Sh. Diyal Singh, Ferozepur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Ferozepur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 400/ASR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 398 To 400/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Jaswant Singh, Vill. Khushal Vs. Ito, Singh Wala, Ferozepur City, Ferozepur. Punjab. [Pan:-Dntps9356C] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By None. (Adjournment Applications Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 144Section 249(3)Section 250Section 271(1)

appeal and the issues involved we reject the adjournment and proceed to dispose off the appeals after hearing the Ld. DR. 3. Condonation of Delay : All the three appeals are filed on the same date belated by 96 (Ninety Six days) and the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation ... prayed for condonation and admission of the appeal to be heard on merits. The Ld. DR has no objection. Considering the reasons we condone the delay and admit the same for hearing on merits. 4. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee has deposited cash in bank which

Sh. Jaswant Singh S/O.Sh. Diyal Singh, Ferozepur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Ferozepur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 399/ASR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Section 144Section 249(3)Section 250Section 271(1)

Sh. Jaswant Singh .S/O. Sh. Diyal Singh, Ferozepur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Ferozepur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 398/ASR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Section 144Section 249(3)Section 250Section 271(1)