“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

Satpal Yadav, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, Jaipur

ITA 1069/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Poonia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 147Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A

Learned CIT(A) dismissed all the appeals in limine on the ground that the assessee had failed to file any proper application seeking condonation of delay, what to say of proving that there was any sufficient cause in filing of those appeals beyond prescribed period of limitation ... while filing all appeals in Form No. 35, it was specified that all those appeals were barred by limitation, and the ground for condonation of delay was put forth as under:- “The assessee was unaware about the reassessment proceedings as all notices were sent to the email and mobile number

Satpal Yadav, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 1068/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Poonia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 147Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A

Satpal Yadav, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 1067/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Poonia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 147Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A

Satpal Yadav, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 1066/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Poonia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 147Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A

Satpal Yadav, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle - 1, Jaipur

ITA 1065/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Poonia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 147Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A

Devi Dayal, Kaithal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kaithal

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 899/CHANDI/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 899/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The Ito, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajpd5851H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

that appeal is time barred by 38 days. In order to explain the delay, assessee has filed A.Y.2008-09 2 an application for condonation of delay. In the application, main reason assigned by the assessee is that due to inadvertent reason, the e-mail containing the order of ld. CIT (Appeals ... also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction

Kulbir Singh, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Mohali

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

ITA 1240/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1240/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Kulbir Singh, The Ito, C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate V Ward 6(4), # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. S Mohali. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Butps5735C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

year 2012-13. 2. The Registry has pointed out that appeal is time barred by 391 days. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. He has pleaded that his appeal was A.Y.2012-13 2 dismissed ex-parte by the CIT (Appeals). The order was not served upon the assessee ... also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing A.Y.2012-13 3 the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation

Ramesh Babulal Patel, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 854/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.853/Ahd/2025 & 854/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Ramesh Babulal Patel The Ito बनाम/ C/O. Gayatri Industries, Ward-1 V/S. 271, Gidc Phase-2 Mehsana – 384 002 Mehsana – 384 002 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahhpp 4902 E (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Jinesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 250Section 68

Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has come in appeal before us. 7. The appeal is time-barred by 174 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. The contents of the same are reproduced as under (extracted from AY 2017-18): “I, Ramesh Babulal Patel aged about ... having regard to the above circumstances which led to delay in filing the appeal for A.Y. 2017-18, I request your Honours to condone such delay and if such request is approved and appeal is admitted by your Honours, I assure that 1 & my legal representatives shall be fully cooperative

Ramesh Babulal Patel, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 853/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Jinesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 250Section 68

Ranjit Dharamsinhbhai Desai, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed

ITA 468/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR

Section 250

Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. The Registry has noted the appeal is time barred by 151 days. No application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee. Moreover, none has appeared for hearing before us nor filed any application for seeking adjournment. Even in the past

Pleasure Agro Private Limited (As A Successor - in Interest of Erstwhile Vishwaraja Properties and Consultancies Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 944/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha

Section 143(3)Section 250

Registry has informed that there is delay of 39 days in preferring the instant appeals before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay. 3. After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the condonation applications, we are satisfied that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 39 days in filing of the instant appeals before this Tribunal. 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that admittedly the impugned orders are exparte because assessee could

Pleasure Agro Private Limited (As A Successor - in Interest of Erstwhile Vishwaraja Properties and Consultancies Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 943/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha

Section 143(3)Section 250

Tejashree Atul Patil, Pune vs. Pr.CIT - 2, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 927/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri C.V.DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54F

informed that there is delay of 237 days in preferring the instant appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. The only reason for the delay is that assessee being dependent upon the advice of legal consultant believed that since ld.PCIT has already set aside

Pravin Kumar Balwant Birhade, Pune vs. Ward 8(1), Pune

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

ITA 687/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Ravi PahlaniFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari

Section 144Section 250

assessee has also raised a ground challenging the impugned order stating that in spite of reasonable cause ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 3134 days and dismissed the appeal in limine. 2 Pravin Kumar Balwant Birhade 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee referring ... seeking acknowledgement of service of the assessment order and relevant documents so as to file the details before ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay. However, ld. CIT(A) has not given cognizance to the fact that assessee has received the assessment order at a later stage

Manoj Ramchandra Jadhav, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Sangli

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

ITA 1728/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 69A

informed that there is delay of 138 days in preferring the instant appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. Main reason for the delay is that the assessee was completely on bed rest owing to his ill health and there was no other family ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 138 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal. 4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment order has been framed u/s.144

Ajeenckya Fattesing Jagtap, Pune vs. ITO, Pune

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

ITA 1645/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Ajay RanderFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari

Section 143(3)Section 250

informed that there is delay of 190 days in preferring the instant appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. During the period, when the assessee was required to file the appeal, certain criminal complaints were filed against him on account of some fraud committed ... appeal within the stipulated time. We note that the assessee has not gained from filing the appeal with a delay. We therefore condone the delay of 190 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal. 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that impugned order

Pradip Popatlal Katariya, Ahilyanagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ahilyanagar

ITA 1496/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Prasad Bhandari, CA (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 69

delay of 286 days in filing of the present appeal. We have heard both the sides and also gone through the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal along with the affidavit. On going through the 2 ITA.No.1496/PUN./2025 (Pradip Popatlal Katariya) contents of the affidavit ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), we hereby condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that against the addition of Rs. 60.00 lakhs made by the Ld.AO

Vijay Shambhuling Popade, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Latur, Latur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 1198/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha, Addl.CIT

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)

time of filing of the appeal, if there is any delay, then the assessee is required to file an application for condonation of delay along with reasons 2 ITA.No.1198/PUN./2025 (Vijay Shambhuling Popade) which prevented him from filing the appeal in time. As per section 253(3), appeal before ... plausible and/or sufficient cause is established giving rise to this delay. We therefore dismiss the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay in filing of the present appeal. 4. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed in limine. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08.09.2025. [VINAY

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kolkata vs. Avinash Commercial Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 1603/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 69

Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 60 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the Revenue stating as under: “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has passed order in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1062976705(1) dated 20.03.2024 through ... appeal within due time and the appeal may kindly be heard on merit for the interests of revenue.” 1.2. Considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the Revenue had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant

Narayan Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1077/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Ghoshal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengputa, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 28 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld. CIT-DR also ... raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, delay of 28 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted by the Id. AR that as per the AO, the assessee had made investments in allegedly