“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

S S Memorial Shikshan Samaj Sewa Sansthan, Etawah vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 220/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 12ASection 249(3)Section 250

assessment year 2016-17, wherein Ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay of 142 days. 2. Brief facts state that the assessee is running an educational institution and is registered u/s. 12AA of the Act. It filed return ... substantiate the same. 3. Assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed first appeal upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. 4. This second appeal has been filed on the ground, in addition to others on merits, that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified

Daya Ram Yadav, Mandla vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jabalpur

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

ITA 71/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 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 requested to admit the appeal ... learned Sr. Departmental I.T.A. No.71/JAB/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 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

Krishna Construction Company, Rewa vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Katni

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 204/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 194CSection 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 40

Aggrieved with the said assessment order, the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), NFAC refused to condone the delay in filing of the appeal holding that the reasons for condoning the delay were not satisfactory. No other reasons were cited. He also confirmed ... these various contradictions outlined above and pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) was completely unjustified both in rejecting the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee, whereto the delay was only of one day and furthermore, he argued that the ld. CIT(A) was totally unjustified

Safari Sales and Services, Jabalpur vs. ITO Ward 1, Satna

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

ITA 101/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra**

Section 144BSection 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 69A

merits of the appeal (C) At the time of hearing, learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that it was a fit case for condonation of delay in filing of appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A); and further that the assessee was not provided reasonable opportunity. He requested ... dismissed the assessee's appeal on limitation ground, treating the assessee's appeal as time barred. The assessee's application for condonation of delay was not considered favourably by learned CIT(A). From the records, it is evident that there was sufficient cause, within the meaning of section

Ayodhya Prasad Dwivedi, Sidhi vs. Incometax Officer Ward 2, Rewa

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

ITA 98/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 253(3)

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 requested to admit the appeal ... learned Sr. Departmental I.T.A. No.98/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 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

Nafees Ali, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Jabalpur

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

ITA 192/JAB/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144BSection 147Section 250(6)Section 253(3)Section 69C

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 LT.A. No.192/JAB/2024 | 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

Prabhat Supa, Chhatarpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Chhatarpur

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

ITA 138/JAB/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 250(6)Section 253(3)

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.138/JAB/2024 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

Jigneshbhai Sa vs. Ibhai Khorani, Surendranagarvs.Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Surendranagar

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

ITA 54/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Saini, Accountat Member & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaarray Ard S/Ita No.54/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing)

Section 147Section 274Section 69A

reply to the query ‘whether there is delay in filling appeal’, the appellant responded as ‘No’. The appellant had not requested any condonation of delay. The ld. CIT(A) issued three notices of hearing, but there was a complete non-compliance on the part of the assessee

Ghanshyambhai Mohanbhai Patel, at Po Umarda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4 Surendranagar, Income Tax Office Irish Building

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

ITA 382/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 382/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (N.A.) (Hybrid Hearing) Ghanshyambhai Mohanbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Surendranagar, Income Tax Near Swaminarayan Mandir, At Umarda, Vs. Office, Irish Building, Opp. Mela Ta.Muli, Dist. Surendranagar-363 510 Medan, Surendranagar-363 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Brjpp 6166 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pinal Raval, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimunyu Singh Yadav, Sr.D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

year-old illiterate farmer residing in the small village at Umarda, Taluka Muli, Distri Surendranagar, Gujarat 363510. 1 humbly submit this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. Din/order no : 1TBA/APL/S/250/202 25/1071292650(1), dated 17/12/2024. Appeal no :CIT( AHMEDABAD-7, 10141/2019-20 ... primary reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. As per doctrine of natural justice. I request that you condone the delay in filing the appeal, considering the circumstances that led to the delay. I have now completed the necessary formalities and I am filing the appeal along all relevant

Akhubhai Kathalbhai Khuman, at Nana Liliya, Taluka Mota Liliya, Dist. Amreli vs. The ITO Ward 3 (1) (4) Amreli, Amreli

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

ITA 305/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 305/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Akhubhai Kathalbhai Khuman, Vs. Ito, Nanaliliya Mota Lilya, Ward-3(1)(4), Amreli-365601 Amreli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bbcpk2506F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pragnesh Jagasheth, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250

assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14, is barred by limitation by 351 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. Learned Counsel for the assessee, explained the reasons for delay, stating that assessee is a farmer by occupation, and not much educated. The assessee ... hand, the ld. D.R. for the Revenue argued that assessee, although, is a senior citizen, but has not explained the sufficient cause, to condone such delay. In the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly

Shri Bhuj Lohana Mahila Vikas, Bhuj vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 262/RJT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 262/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: Na Hybrid Hearing बनाम Shri Bhuj Lohana Mahila Vikas Cit (Exemption) Vs. 16, C/O Harjivan Velji Popat Ghanshyam Room No. 609, Floor-6, Aaykar Nagar, Bhawan (Vejapur), Near Sachin Bhuj – 370001 (Gujarat) Tower, 100 Foot Road, Anandnagar – Prahladnagar Road Ahmedabad-380015 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan No. : Aafas4626N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R.B. Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit (Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT (DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

assessee, before this Tribunal, is barred by limitation by 632 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. 4. Learned Counsel for the assessee explained the reasons for delay stating that delay was mainly caused because of the mistake, committed by the advocate ... should not be condoned on account of such flimsy reasons, and mistake of the advocate should not be considered a sufficient cause to condone the delay, as it is the responsibility of the assessee to file the appeal, on time Therefore, the delay should not be condoned and appeal

Damjibhai Lekhrajbhai Thavrani, Junagadh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Junagadh

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

ITA 239/RJT/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 239/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: (2008-09) बनाम Damjibhai Lekharjibhai Thavrani Income-Tax Officer, C/O. Sarda & Sarda (Ca), Sakar 1St Vs. Ito Ward – 1 Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Opp. Income Tax Office, Bhootnath Rajkumar College, Chamber, Rajkot 360001 Junagadh – 362001 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan No. : Aeypt7701B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT (DR)

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal as non-maintainable without condoning the delay in filing the appeal.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 55 days in terms of provisions of section ... decided on merit. 4. On the other hand, the Learned Senior DR for the Revenue submitted that Bench may decide the matter of condonation of delay, as it thinks fit. 5. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. In the affidavit, it is submitted that assessee

Bhaveshkumar Mahendrabhai Maniyar, Junagadh vs. The ITO Ward-1, Junagadh.

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

ITA 234/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Saini, Accountat Member & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.234/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) Bhavneshkumar Mahendrabhai Vs. Ito, Maniyar, Ward – 1, Prop.Of Shree Hari Enterprise, Junagadh Shop No.2, Rajkamal Apartment, Junagadh, Junagadh - 362001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afdpm3866Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) filed an application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit of the assessee where it is ITA.234/RJT/2025/AY.2019-20 Bhaveshkumar Mahendrabhai Maniyar submitted that the order of CIT(A) was issued on email ... neither intentional nor deliberate on his part. After getting information, he immediately filed appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, the ld. AR requested to condone the delay in filing before ITAT. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submitted that the reasons given

Choudhary Narsiram, Gandhidham vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Gandhidham

In the result, quantum appeal in ITA No

ITA 946/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271B

days whereas assessee’s appeal in ITA No.943/RJT/2024, is barred by limitation of 22 days. The assessee moved separate petitions for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee explained that the assessee was not aware about passing online appeal ... reasons explained by assessee in the respective condonation petition of delay and having regard to the reasons given in the respective petitions for condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that assessee has explained sufficient cause and therefore delay needs to be condoned. Therefore, in the interest

Choudhary Narsiram, Gandhidham vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Gandhidham

In the result, quantum appeal in ITA No

ITA 943/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271B

Anil Kumar Sah, Banka vs. ITO, WD-1(4), Bhagalpur

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

ITA 324/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 324/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Anil Kumar Sah,………………………....….………Appellant Near Bari Durga Mandir, Kajreli Road, Amarpur, Dist. Banka-813101, Bihar [Pan:Aqgps8735A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-1(4), Bhagalpur, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, R.N. Plaza, R B S S Road, Bhagalpur-812001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 29, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143Section 143(1)

days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed a condonation petition before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 90 days mentioning that the delay occurred due to miscommunication of uploading order either on the registered email or registered mobile no. He further submitted ... appeal, due to that there was a delay of 90 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

late by 66 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. It has been stated that notices of hearing were issued to the wrong e-mail Id, i.e., ‘moulimaniImpexpl@gmail.com

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

Moulimani Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 533/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)