“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

The Uppilipalayam Mill Industrial Workers Coop House Construction Society Ltd., Coimbatore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), Coimbatore

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

ITA 3897/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 3897 &3898 /Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2020-21 The Uppilipalayam Mill Industrial V. Ito, Workers Coop House Construction Non Corporate Ward Society Ltd., 1(4) Coimbatore Uppilipalayam Post, Coimbatore-641015 [Pan: Awvpg 3572 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. A Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: 17.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 80P(2)(a)

appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals on account of delay. 3. Before us, appellant has requested for condonation of delay. We find that there is delay in filing of appeal of 389 & 238 days and the cause for such inordinate delay has been mentioned as due to absence ... filing the captioned petitions before CIT (A). 5. We find that the reasons given by the assessee are sufficient cause. Hence, we condone the delay and set aside the both orders of CIT(A) and restored back files to the CIT(A) for adjudication of an appeal afresh on merits

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai vs. Veda Real Estate Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, the present appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7966/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal. In our view, no benefit would have accrued to the Appellant by delaying filing of appeal. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Therefore, delay of 150 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to examine the grounds raised in the present appeal. 3. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record. 4. It emerges that the asse

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj JainFor Respondent: Shri Kavita Kaushik

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The appeal preferred by the Revenue is delayed by 150 days. In the application seeking condonation of delay Revenue has been explained that the delay in filing the appeal is purely inadvertent and occurred Assessment Year 2018-2019 due to bonafide administrative reasons. The delay ... Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others AIR 1987 1353 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay, emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very

Ramani Mathuraprasad Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

ITA 7543/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Naimish JoshiFor Respondent: Date

Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 56(2)(vii)

Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others AIR 1987 1353 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay, emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very ... merits after hearing the parties. We have no reason to doubt the explanation offered by the Appellant in the present case. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 51 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 3. Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee

Parekh Ornaments LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6186/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailparekh Ornaments Llp 20, Chandra Villa, Nehru Road, Vileparle (East), Mumbai - 400057 ............... Appellant Pan: Aasfp4562A V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), ……………… Respondent Prathistha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Annexe, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Assessee By : Shri Ketan Vajani Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

filed by the assessee after a delay of more than 2 years. Alongwith the appeal, the assessee has filed an application 2 seeking condonation of delay, duly supported by the affidavit of the partner of the assessee, submitting as follows: - “2. For the assessment year ... knowledge and belief and I confirm the same on oath.” 3. We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag

Shri Bharat Navinchandra Gala, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 506/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 154

refer to the decision of Hon’ble Cochin Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Midas Polymer Compounds Pvt. Ltd. dated 25.6.2018, condoned the delay of 2819 days by observing as follows: “6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. There was a delay ... accompanied by an affidavit which has been cited in the earlier para. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons and prayed for condonation of delay. The reason stated by the assessee is due to inadvertent omission on the part of Shri Unnikrishnan Nair N, CA in taking appropriate action

Savitri Sheet Grah, Etawah vs. ITO- 2(1), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 553/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2017-18

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

against the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 by a delay of about less than a month. The assessee’s application for the condonation of delay caused in filing this appeal is on record. The grounds shown is that the delay was caused during transit after dispatch of the appeal memo

Joura Co-Operative Marketing Society Limited, Morena, Madhya Pradesh vs. ITO, Morena

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 237/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19 Joura Co-Operative Marketing Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Society Limited Ward-1, Morena The Joura Dist Morena Dist. Morena Pan :Aabaj1828K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. N. Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Order

Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 68

Bench noticed that there is delay of 15 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed condonation of delay before us. In this situation, the Bench adopts the lenient view for such 15 days delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and admits

Krishna Kumar Gupta, Balaghat vs. Income Tax Officer, Balaghat

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

ITA 73/JAB/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 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 ... 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 I.T.A. No.73/JAB/2025 Assessment Year:2018-19 2 foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before

Mayurbhanj Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Baripada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Baripada

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

ITA 650/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

appeal in ITA No. 650/Ctk/2025 of the assessee is delayed by 235 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 ITA No. 649 & 650/Ctk/2025 ... Mayurbhanj Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs ITO found to be false. Ld. DRs did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 235 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. It was submitted

Mayurbhanj Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Baripada vs. ITO, Ward-1, Baripada

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

ITA 649/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Arthakalash Magasvargiya Karmachari Sahakari Path Swanstha Limited, Dhamangaon vs. ITO Ward-1, Amravati

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

ITA 756/NAG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Himesh DembleFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

case, the Hon'ble Ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the case on merits and has merely rejected the appeal without allowing the condonation of delay. 5. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Ld. CIT(A) ought to have remanded the case back ... Court cited (supra), I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make

Srilakshmi Devireddy, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada

ITA 428/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Srilakshmi Devireddy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5) D.No. 9-58, Loyabata Road Nunna, Vijayawada – 521212 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bjupd8440D] Vijayawada करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing 16.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Per Ravish Sood, Jm: आदेश /Order The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 12.11.2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act"), Dated 03.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

hereby condoned. My aforesaid view that a judicial and liberal approach should be adopted while considering an application filed by an appellant for condonation of delay is Page. No 4 I.T.A.No.428/VIZ/2025 SriLakshmi Devireddy- supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal ... Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering

Tirumala Rao Battu, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 312/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69

Although I find that the law is well settled that while courts are expected to adopt a liberal approach in considering petitions for condonation of delay where sufficient cause is shown, such liberality cannot be extended to condone inordinate delay where the explanation is vague, casual, or lacking in bona

Rekha Khandelwal, Rajgarh vs. ITO Ward Rajgarh, Rajgarh

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 649/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Rekha Khandelwal, Income-Tax Officer, Ward No.2, Near Chote Ward Rajgarh Hanuman Mandir, बनाम/ Rajgarh Bus Stand Vs. S.O. Rajgarh, (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eljpk1548B Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 253(5)Section 68

registry has informed that the present appeal is filed after a delay and therefore time-barred. The assessee has filed an application/affidavit for condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference: Page 2 of 11 Rekha Khandelwal ITA No. 649/Ind/2025 – A.Y. 2014-15 Page

Ranveer Singh Suryawanshi, Dhar vs. ITO Dhar, Dhar

In the result “Impugned order” is set aside as and by way

ITA 641/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiranveer Singh Suryawanshi, Ito, Dhar बनाम/ Datwada Datwade, Vs. Indore, Mp (Pan:Awlps7673N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan,Ca & Ruchira Singhal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 246Section 249Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

days. Thus, there is substantial delay in filing of the appeal. 2.7 In this case, the appellant has stated the following reason for condonation of delay in Form No. 35, Col. No. 14. There is no delay in filing of appeal as the Appellant was not aware about the order ... reason stated by appellant does not hold any strong Page 3 of 8 Ranveer Singh Suryawanshi ITA No. 641/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2016-17 ground for the condonation of delay. Hence, the appellant has not discharged the onus of "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 249 of the I.T. Act. Hence, the delay

Akhilesh Parmar, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 636/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

registry has informed that the present appeal is filed after a delay and therefore time-barred. The assessee has filed an application/affidavit for condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference: F LuLe A IL, KOC TY JUL wag) ——— ~~ aret: sfererer wane Toot

Anil Turakhia, Indore vs. ITO-5(1), Indore

ITA 596/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshianil Turakhia

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

Table in earlier Para No. 1. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed applications/affidavits in all these matters for condonation of delay. The applications/affidavits filed by assessee are identical, therefore we re- produce below one of those: Page 2 of 9 Anil Turakhia ITA Nos.593 to 596/Ind/2025- ... NOTED & REGISTERED Date 14 JAN ZUZB At Sr. No.2854/2026 BEFORE THE HON’BLE ITAT, INDORE BENCH, INDORE Application of Condonation of Delay 289 12.02.2026 Assessee Anil Turakhia 46, Loha Mandi Indore-452001503 Appeal No ITA 594/IND/2025 A.Υ. 2013-14 (Sec.143(3) r.w.s 254) -Delay 701 days May it please

Anil Turakhia, Indore vs. ITO-5(1), Indore

ITA 595/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshianil Turakhia, 19 Rani Sati Colony, Y.N. Road, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

Table in earlier Para No. 1. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed applications/affidavits in all these matters for condonation of delay. The applications/affidavits filed by assessee are identical, therefore we re- produce below one of those: Page 2 of 9 Anil Turakhia ITA Nos.593 to 596/Ind/2025- ... 12/02/26 NOTED & REGISTERED Date 14 JAN ZUZ8 At Sr. No.2854/2026 BEFORE THE HON’BLE ITAT, INDORE BENCH, INDORE Application of Condonation of Delay 289 12.02.2026 Assessee Anil Turakhia 46, Loha Mandi Indore-452001503 Appeal No ITA 594/IND/2025 A.Υ. 2013-14 (Sec.143(3) r.w.s 254) -Delay 701 days

Anil Turakhia, Indore vs. ITO-5(1), Indore

ITA 594/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshianil Turakhia

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

Table in earlier Para No. 1. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed applications/affidavits in all these matters for condonation of delay. The applications/affidavits filed by assessee are identical, therefore we re- produce below one of those: Page 2 of 9 Anil Turakhia ITA Nos.593 to 596/Ind/2025- ... NOTED & REGISTERED Date 14 JAN ZUZ8 At Sr. No. 2854/2026 BEFORE THE HON’BLE ITAT, INDORE BENCH, INDORE Application of Condonation of Delay 289 12.02.2026 Assessee Anil Turakhia 46, Loha Mandi Indore-452001503 Appeal No ITA 594/IND/2025 A.Υ. 2013-14 (Sec.143(3) r.w.s 254) -Delay 701 days

Anil Turakhia, Indore vs. ITO-5(1), Indore

ITA 593/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshianil Turakhia

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

Table in earlier Para No. 1. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed applications/affidavits in all these matters for condonation of delay. The applications/affidavits filed by assessee are identical, therefore we re- produce below one of those: Page 1 of 9 Anil Turakhia ITA Nos.593 to 596/Ind/2025- ... NOTED & REGISTERED Date 14 JAN 2028 At Sr. No. 2854/2026 BEFORE THE HON’BLE ITAT, INDORE BENCH, INDORE Application of Condonation of Delay Assessee Anil Turakhia 46, Loha Mandi Indore-452001503 Appeal No ITA 594/IND/2025 A.Υ. 2013-14 (Sec.143(3) r.w.s 254) -Delay 701 days May it please your