“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

Ravikant Khare, Tikamgarh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Tikamgarh

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

ITA 37/JAB/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 69A

dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine 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 ... section 249(2) of the Act. Accordingly, it is held that this was a fit case for the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of the appeal in his office and to admit the appeal for decision on merits. The Assessing Officer has also not provided reasonable

Chhaya Masurkar, Balaghat vs. NFAC, ITO Balaghat, Balaghat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 61/JAB/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrachhaya Masurkar V. National Faceless Appeal 1, Ward No. 9, Ram Mandir Center (Nfac) Road, Katangi, Balaghat (Mp)- Delhi (Jurisdiction Officer, 481445. Income Tax Officer, Balaghat (Mp)-110001. Pan:Cakpm8662A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, Ca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) O R D E R (A) The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)- Delhi, Dated 23.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 69A

assessee are as under: - “1. On the facts & circumstances of the case LD CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the condonation of delay application in spite of having reasonable case as submitted by assessee henceforth the order of CIT(A) may kindly be quashed. 2. On the facts & circumstances

Shri Sajad Rasool Khan, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Srinagr

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

ITA 23/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

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

filed appeal before your good self. 2. That the Appeal before your good self is filed belated by 353 days Application for condonation of delay has been filed before your good self. It is submitted that Appellants father was seriously ill and was diagnosed with serious liver disease and renal ... failure, which required constant attention care and frequent hospitalization. A copy of medical records discharge, medical cards submitted with Application for condonation of delay That the father of Appellant was under medical treatment, and there has not been wilful default in filling Appeal before your good self. 3. That Appellants

Shri Narendra Kumar Bhojwani, Bhatapara vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara

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

ITA 488/RPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.488/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Narendra Kumar Bhojwani C/O. Bhojwani Medical Stores, Hatri Bazar, Sadar Ward, Bhatapara-493 118 (C.G.) Pan: Adepb7523J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Birendra Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 5

26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025, had observed that a justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income ... Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. 5. That in the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil

Ganesh Kumar Paidi, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 135/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250

leading to the delay in filing the present appeal by the assessee, in the backdrop of the application filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay, along with the supporting medical certificate and affidavit. We find that there are justifiable grounds explaining the same. Our aforesaid view that a liberal ... setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of 5 Ganesh Kumar Paidi Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 114 days by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while

Karada Kala Sahithya Prathistana Gurudhama, Enmakaje vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kochi

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed

ITA 579/COCH/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharykarada Kala Sahithya .......... Appellant Prathistanagurudhama, Enmakaje, Perla P.O., Kasaragod, Kerala-671552 [Pan: Aadtk 8826 B] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) .......... Respondent Kochi. Appellant By: None Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee-Trust Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Kochi [For Short, ‘Cit(E)’] Dated 24.06.2025 Rejecting The Application Filed In Form No. 10Ab For Grant Of Registration U/S.12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, 'The Act'). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is A Trust Duly Registered With The Objects Of Charitable Purpose. The Appellant Was Granted Temporary Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Act

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR

Section 12A

application in Form No. 10AB was not filed within the prescribed time, but filed on 16/11/2024. The appellant also filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing the application, however, Ld. CIT(E) without dealing with the petition for condonation of delay, had proceeded with dismissal of application ... appeal before us in the present appeal.Admittedly, the Ld. CIT(E) had not dealtwith the condonation petition filed by the appellant-trust seeking condonation of delay in filing the application. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires remand to the file

The Kattoor Service Cooperative Bank Limited, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 561/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

that there is a delay of 155 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the delay occurred as the appellant did not receive the order under Section ... appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication. Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay, in the absence of any evidence contrary, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant society is prevented by sufficient reasonable cause in filing

The Kattoor Service Cooperative Bank Limited, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 560/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

The Kattoor Service Cooperative Bank Limited, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 559/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amaljith P.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80P

M/S Singhal Tel Evam Pashu Ahar Udyog, Tonk vs. Income Tax Oficer Ward Tonk, Tonk

ITA 965/JPR/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Aug 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: CIT(A), the assessee firm had engaged Shri Mahaveer Lal Jain, but said counsel left this world on 30.05.2021, and as such, the applicant had no information or knowledge about the impugned order, dated 13.03.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A). So, the prayer is that the appeal be admitted.

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Singhal Tel Evam Pashu Ahar Udyog, Tonk. prescribed period of limitation. In this regard, Assessee-applicant has filed an application while seeking condonation of delay. 2. Heard on the point of condonation of delay. File perused. 3. Ld. AR for the applicant-applicant has submitted that for the purpose

A and J Industrial and Financial Consultancy Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Jaipur

ITA 85/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 153A

issue involved and without verifying details which were required to be verified under scope of scrutiny. 15. Arguments heard. File perused. Issue of condonation of delay 16. This appeal came to be instituted on 22.01.2025. The impugned order passed by Learned PCIT is dated 22.03.2024. Registry raised a deficiency note ... that the appeal came to be filed 236 days after the prescribed period of limitation. On behalf of the appellant, an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed. It is accompanied by affidavit of Shri Mukesh Goyal Accounts Head/Director of the applicant company. 17. Ld. AR for the appellant

Sushila Nandwana, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(1), Jaipur

ITA 777/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 148

appeal is barred by limitation, having been filed 378 days after the prescribed period. With the appeal, the assessee filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The assessee also presented her own affidavit with the application. Today, when the matter has taken up, Ld. AR has presented affidavit of Shri ... husband, where it was not required to be addressed. 5. In the given situation, we deem it a fit case to condone the delay in filing of the appeal, and order accordingly. On merits 6. The only submission put forth by Ld. AR for the appellant is that the Assessing

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur, Ambedkar Circle vs. A and J Industrial and Financial Consultancy Private Limited, Jhotwara

ITA 269/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 153A

Syed Mohammad Mayar Husain Rizvi, Panchkula vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangaluru

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

ITA 89/LKW/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 253(3)

time limit prescribed u/s 253(3) of the I. T. Act. An affidavit dated 10/03/2025 was filed by the assessee requesting for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Giving detailed description of the facts and circumstances, which caused the delay in filing of the appeal, the assessee ... control and requested that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. The learned D.R. for Revenue expressed no objection to condonation of delay and admitting the appeal for hearing. In view of the foregoing, and being convinced with the reasons given by assessee, the delay in filing

Shri Shivbachan Sewa Santhan, Ghazipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Lucknow

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

ITA 125/LKW/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Aug 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 253(3)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

prescribed u/s 253(3) of the I. T. Act. An application dated 30/01/2025 supported by affidavit was filed by the assessee requesting for condonation of delay in filing of the appeals. Giving detailed description of the facts and circumstances, which caused the delay in filing of the appeals, the assessee ... control and requested that the delay in filing these appeals may be condoned. The learned D.R. for Revenue expressed no objection to condonation of delay and admitting the appeals for hearing. In view of the foregoing, and being convinced with the reasons given by assessee, the delay in filing

Shri Shivbachan Sewa Santhan, Ghazipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Lucknow

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

ITA 124/LKW/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Aug 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 253(3)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

Ajit Singh, Patiala vs. ITO, Patiala

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

ITA 158/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Us, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit, Which Is Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Rejected)For Respondent: Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 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. I have considered the reasoning given in the affidavit and inclined to condone the delay ... have any objection for this condonation of delay. Background facts: 5. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee had made cash deposits of ₹58,60,500/- in his bank account with State Bank of India, Patiala, during the financial year 2011-12. The case of the assessee was reopened

The Visnagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Circle-Gandhinagar (Previously DCIT, Patan Circle, Patan), Gandhinagar

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

ITA 738/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.738, 1414 & 1415/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) The Visnagar Nagarik Sahakari The Assistant Commissioner Bank Ltd.,(Under Liquidation) बनाम Of Income Tax, / Market Yard, Circle Gandhinagar. V/S. Visnagar, (Previously Dcit, Mehsana-384315, Patan Circle, Patan) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaft8764C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A P Nanavaty, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], All Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Arising From The Assessments Framed By The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle, Patan [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Assessing Officer Or Ao”] Under Section 143(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri A P Nanavaty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(4)

Nos.738,1414 &1415/Ahd/2025 The Visnagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Vs. ACIT Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 5 CIT(A) rejected the condonation of delay however also examined the matter on merit and dismissed the appeal. For other two assessment years also the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ... NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal on facts and in law on the ground of non-condonation of delay and on merits confirming addition of Rs. 10,19,72,904/- as taxable income. 2. Assessee being bank under liquidation administered by official liquidator being official of Cooperation Department holds

Shalom Bhakti Mandali, Dahod vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 312/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद न्यायपीठ "बी", अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD श्री संजय गर्ग, न्यायिक

The Visnagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd (Under Liquidation), Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Circle-Gandhinagar (Previously DCIT, Patan Circle, Patan), Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1414/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A P Nanavaty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(4)