“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

Shanti Satyadev Mishra, Santacruz Vakola vs. Assessing Officer, Piramal Chamber Parel

In the result, ground No. 2 & 3 of appeal are allowed for

ITA 4574/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Shanti Satyadev Mishra Ito - 22(3)(1), Mumbai C-603 Building No. 3, Khandwala Sra Scy, Vs Dattamandir Road, Vakola B Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400055. [Pan: Arepm0794J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 148Section 254(1)

date of knowledge of order there is no delay. Still to avoid objection, the assessee is seeking indulgence of this Tribunal for condoning the delay, which is not intentional or deliberate. The assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed, if the assessee is given opportunity ... rival submission of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. Firstly, I’m considering the plea of condonation of delay. The foremost plea of learned AR of the assessee is that impugned order was not received by assessee and that the assessee came

Mahesh Rajaram Kukreja, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner, Vashi Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1977/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankarmahesh Rajaram Kukreja, V/S. Office Of Assistant Commissioner A-1601, 02, 03, Sai Pride, Plot बनाम Of Income Tax, Circle – 28(2), No. 05, Sector 18, Sanpada, Mumbai, Thane – 400705, Navi Mumbai – 400705, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpk5085H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri (Sr.AR)

Section 143(3)

appeal against. But, due to covid issue, tax adviser could not be contacted which resulted in the delay. He requested to allow for condonation of delay due P a g e | 4 A.Y. 2012-13 Mahesh Rajaram Kukreja, Thane to his unawareness having lack of educational background and not technical ... friendly with computer, and latest technology. It is requested to request to condone the delay which is bonafide and unintentional. 4. On careful consideration of the submissions of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in filing of the present appeal was not intentional

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Haresh Kumar Manjibhai Patel, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue fails and is dismissed in its entirety

ITA 3633/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69C

Cross Objection filed by the assessee, it is noted at the outset that the same is delayed by 257 days. An application for condonation of delay, supported by a sworn affidavit, has been placed on record. In the cross objection, the assessee has primarily challenged the validity of the reopening

Sh. Nitin Singhal, Haldwani vs. PCIT, Haldwami

Appeal is dismissed for delay in latches

ITA 7/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 07/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2015-16) Sh. Nitin Singhal Vs Pcit C/O Mattagarg& Co. 15, Astley Aayakr Bhawan, Chorgalia, Hall, Dehradun, Haldwani, Byepass Road, Golapur, Uttarakhand Kathgodam, Haldwani, Pan: Aqwps4877P Uttarakhand, 263126 Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Sh. S. K. Chatterhee, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Haldwani

available on record. 3. There is an inordinate delay of 1356 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay contending that ‘due to Covid-19 situations and due to giving entire attention on restarting his factory and business and also ... different kinds of opinion which confused the Assessee whether to go for appeal or not.’ The said reasons provided in the application for condonation of delay is not only casual in nature and also not supported with any material. In our considered opinion, the Assessee has failed to explain sufficient

Mr Abhishek Raesh Raikar, Margao vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Margao

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

ITA 15/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

Section 69A

delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the application and affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit

Jiteshbhai Ramniklal Nagada, Jamnagar vs. ITO, Ward 2(6), Jamnagar

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

ITA 46/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.39/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda Vs. Ito, Wd- 2(6), Jamnagar Flat No. 603, K D Tower, Oswal Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Colony, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar-361004 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agtpn7366D (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 50CSection 56Section 68

barred by limitation by 417 days and 173 days, respectively. Both the assessees have moved separate petitions requesting the Bench to condone the delay. Since both the assessees pertain to one family group, therefore contents in both the petitions for condonation of delay are similar and identical. Therefore, we take ... lead case in ITA No. 39/Rjt/2025 for AY 2014-15 and accordingly the contents in the petition for condonation of delay in ITA No. 39/Rjt/2025, are reproduced below: “I would like to submit before your honour with a prayer for condonation of delay of 430 days in filing of Appeal

Kantaben Ramniklal Nagda, Jamnagar vs. ITO, Ward 2(6), Jamnagar

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

ITA 39/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 50CSection 56Section 68

Fusion Granito Private Limited, Morbi vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot

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

ITA 190/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.190/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Principal Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No.555/P1/91, Tax-1, Vs. Nr. Khokhra Hanuman Temple, 2Nd Jetpar Road, Morbi-363641 Rajkot, Floor, “Aayakar Bhawan”, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcf 0696 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Praveen Verma, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot [In Short ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 27.03.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: “1. The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2023 Is Bad In Law. 2. The Hon’Ble Pr. Cit-1, Rajkot Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Completing The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Hurriedly In Short Span Of Time Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may admit belated application on sufficient cause being shown. Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, giving the reasons for the delay, along with necessary evidences should be filed with Form No. 35 (i.e., form of appeal). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ... condone the delay in filing the appeal if genuine reason exists for delay. No doubt, the CIT (A) one should be liberal in dealing with the application for condonation of delay. However, one must at the same time keep in mind that condoning of the delay should not result

Katargam Industrial Estate Shedholders, Surat vs. CIT(E), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 698/SRT/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 124(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)

hearing of the appeal.” 12. There is a delay of 165 days in filing the appeal. The appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay, which is similar in context to the application in ITA No.697/SRT/2025 (supra). The delay is condoned for the same reasons mentioned in para

Shree Siddhivinayk Charitable Trust Jiyav, Surat vs. CIT(E), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 697/SRT/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 124(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)

hearing of the appeal.” 12. There is a delay of 165 days in filing the appeal. The appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay, which is similar in context to the ITA Nos.697 & 698/SRT/2025/AY 2025-26 Shree Siddhivinayak Charitable Trust Jiyav & Katargam Industrial Estate Shedeholders application

The Muthalamada East Ksheera Vyavasaya Coop Society Ltd Nop4D, Muthalamada vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-2, Aaykar Bhavan

ITA 570/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the CIT(A). During the appellate proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that

For Appellant: Shri Rajendran, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. AR

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 69A

specified period of 30 days from the date of passing of the assessment order. Since the Assessee had not moved any application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal has being barred by limitation. The Ld. CIT(A) also observed that the Assessee ... Representative placed reliance on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the Assessee had not filed any application seeking condonation of delay and also failed to substantiate the claim/submission on merits during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings. Therefore, the order passed

Kishan Assudani, Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, 3(1), Bhopal

Appeal of the assessed is allowed for statistical

ITA 749/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshikishan Assudani, Acit 3(1), बनाम/ Prop. Kishan Assudani, Bhopal Vs. Plot No.6, Mainroad, Gandhi Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aeupa8876Q) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 40A(3)

delay of 357 days in preferring the instant second appeal. That Ld. AR has placed on record of this Tribunal a condonation of delay application which reads as under:- “1.That, an Order under s. 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 was passed in the case of the appellant ... kindly be admitted and oblige”. The Ld. AR also placed on record of this Tribunal an affidavit dated 01.09.2025 in the support of condonation of delay application. In so far as prima facie case is concerned the Ld. AR showed to us during the course of the hearing a show

Ratan Lal Yadav, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

Appeal is hereby dismissed as having become infructuous

ITA 336/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Naman Maloo, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 148ASection 69A

account. 2. Since this Registry raised a deficiency notice that the appeal is barred by limitation, the assessee subsequently filed an application seeking condonation of delay. 3. The appeal is stated to have been filed after delay of 3 days. Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted that the appellant ... applicant came to know of the impugned order on 03.03.2025. 4. The application seeking condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the appellant-applicant. Even though the applicant-appellant has alleged that email ID available in the record of the Income Tax Department belongs to some other person

Jan Swabhiman Manch, Jaipur vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

23. In view of the above, this appeal is disposed of for statistical purpose, and the application u/s 80G is restored to the files of Learned CIT(E), for applicant in accordance with law

ITA 1046/JPR/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

submitted that as per proviso to clause (ac) to section 12A(1) inserted with effect from 01.10.2014, PCIT/CIT have been empowered to condone the delay in filing of the application, whenever there is a reasonable cause for condonation of delay in filing the same. This legal preposition is not disputed ... department, but his submission is that the applicant did not file any application seeking condonation of delay. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that approval of provisional registration having been granted to the applicant upto the assessment year 2026-27, the assessee was under

Jan Swabhiman Manch, Jaipur vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

23. In view of the above, this appeal is disposed of for statistical purpose, and the application u/s 80G is restored to the files of Learned CIT(E), for applicant in accordance with law

ITA 1045/JPR/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

West Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Kota vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kota

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1009/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 80P

these three appeals. The bench has noted that the assessee while filling the present appeals has filed an application for praying to condone the delay. The application so filed by the assessee reads as under : "Sub: Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal With reference to above ... orders came to my knowledge. However, as advised, we are filing the appeal before Hon'ble ITAT along with the request to condone the delay in filing the appeals. Hence the delay in filing the appeal before Hon'ble ITAT is due to a reasonable cause and therefore, the same

West Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Kota vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kota

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1008/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 80P

West Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Kota vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kota

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1007/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 80P

these three appeals. The bench has noted that the assessee while filling the present appeals has filed an application for praying to condone the delay. The application so filed by the assessee reads as under : “Sub: Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal With reference to above ... orders came to my knowledge. However, as advised, we are filing the appeal before Hon'ble ITAT along with the request to condone the delay in filing the appeals. Hence the delay in filing the appeal before Hon'ble ITAT is due to a reasonable cause and therefore, the same

Bhartiya Jan Sewa Ashram, Jaunpur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 200/LKW/2020[20161-7]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 144Section 68

appeal of the assessee was filed on 26.05.2020 and is therefore delayed by 50 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and an affidavit, in which it had submitted that the Secretary was not well during the period 15th March, 2020 to 22nd

Bahubali Kallappa Kabadge, Sangli Miraj vs. ITO, Ward-5, Sangli

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are

ITA 392/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, DR (virtual)

Section 147Section 250Section 69A

days and 401 days in filing of the instant appeals for the A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17. An affidavit along with application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee and one of the reasons for the said delay is on account of e-mail ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), condone the delay of 15 days and 401 days in filing of the instant appeals for A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively and admit them for adjudication. 4. At the outset, learned counsel