“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

Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Allahabad vs. ITO 2(3), Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 171/ALLD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 147Section 253(3)

assessee has submitted I.T.A. No.171/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2011-12 2 an application dated 25/11/2024 duly supported by affidavit 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 for hearing ... 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 in filing of this appeal is condoned

Chinmastika Sidhartha(Jv), Patna vs. CIT(A), Patna

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

ITA 657/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

appeal by the assessee. However, Shri Praveen Prakash, Authorized Signatory of the assessee filed a condonation petition before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 22 days mentioning that the delay occurred due to upgradation of e-filing portal of ITAT and in a state of confusion ... Chitragupt Puja, Chatth Puja and other festivals during which the Advocate was engaged in the observance of these festivals. 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

Pavana Manuel Xavier, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Corporate Ward 2(3), Kochi

ITA 572/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K.V., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 282(1)

that there is a delay of 104 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 had occurred as the appellant was under medical treatment and was advised ... 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, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is prevented by sufficient reasonable cause in filing

Sh. Darshan Singh, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Alwar

Appeal is allowed on the only legal ground raised before us by Ld

ITA 742/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Date of Hearing : 21/08/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 25/08/2025 vkns'k@ORDER Per: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member Condonation of Delay Present appeal came to be presented on 05.05.2025. As per deficiency note raised by the Registry came to be filed 370 days after the prescribed ... period of limitation. The appeal is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. 2 Sh. Darshan Singh, Alwar. 2. First of all, arguments have been advanced on the application seeking condonation of delay. File perused. 3. While referring to the averments in the application accompanied by the affidavit

Kamla Verma, Kanpur vs. ITO-1(2)(2), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 364/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Kamla Verma V. The Income Tax Officer 185/7, Vijay Nagar Ward 1(2)(2) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Akcpv2921K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 115BSection 144Section 271ASection 69A

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated Nil for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit of the assessee, Smt. Kamla Verma, stating therein that the assessee being a non-technical person and being ignorant and unaware ... view of the prayer made by the Assessee, duly supported by an Affidavit and no objection by the Ld. Sr. D.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 6.0 The Ld. A.R. submitted that the only dispute before this Tribunal was sustenance

Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd, Baghauli, Hardoi vs. The ITO, Range-3(2), Hardoi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 219/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Nos.218 & 219/LKW/2022 Page 8 of 10 appeals before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 07.12.2022 for condonation of delay, duly supported by Affidavits of Shri Mahendra Singh Yadav, stating therein that the impugned orders of the ld. CIT(A) were served ... view of the prayer made by the Assessee, duly supported by an Affidavit and no objection by the Ld. Sr. D.R., we condone the delay in filing of the appeals and admit the appeals for hearing. 6.0 The Ld. A.R. submitted that in both the appeals, the AO has disallowed

Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Baghauli, Hardoi vs. The ITO Range-3(3), Hardoi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Smt. Manju Singh, Kanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 163/LKW/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Manju Singh V. The Ito L-12, Gsvm Medical College Ward 3(2) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aebps3395D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 12.10.2021, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Engaged In Trading Of Shares, Securities & Mutual Funds. The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 11.09.2015, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,05,350/-. In The Computation Of Income, The Assessee Had Claimed Rs.55,99,694/- As Exempt Income Under Section 10(38) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) On Sale Of Mutual Funds. However, As Per The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Assessee Had Earned Exempt Income Of Rs.50,81,234/- On Sale Of Mutual Funds And, Accordingly, The Assessee Had Claimed Excess

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 68

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 05.04.2023 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit of the assessee, Smt. Manju Singh, stating therein that the impugned order passed by the NFAC was not visible ... view of the prayer made by the Assessee, duly supported by an Affidavit and no objection by the Ld. Sr. D.R., we condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 8.0 The Ld. A.R. submitted that the AO had made the impugned addition which

Gurusthali Santhan Aiwam Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Meerut vs. CIT(Exemption), Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 150/LKW/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: N.A. Gurusthali Santhan Aiwam V. The Cit(Exemption) Shiksha Prasar Samiti Lucknow 62/2, Civil Line, Saket Road Near Dhanwantri Hospital Meerut (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aabtg8951F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 12A

submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 09.12.2024, which was received by the Registry of this Office on 09.12.2024, for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit of Mr. Raja, President of the assessee- society, stating therein that he himself was a handicapped person and that during ... prayer made on behalf of the Assessee, duly supported by an Affidavit, Medical Certificates and no objection by the ld. CIT (D.R.), we condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 6.0 The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee-society had filed an application

Shree Triveni Foods, Parwanoo vs. ITO Parwanoo, Parwanoo

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

ITA 682/CHANDI/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: The Tribunal. 3. The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Assessee Had Never Been Served With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) And, Therefore, He Was Under The Bona Fide Belief That The Appeal Was Still Pending Adjudication Before The Ld. Cit(A). It Was Only When The Assessee Filed An Application Under The “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024” (Vsvs), That He Came To Know That The Appeal Had Already Been Dismissed. It Was Submitted That The Delay Was Neither Deliberate Nor Intentional But Occurred On Account Of Circumstances Beyond The Assessee’S Control. Reliance Was Placed On The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Collector, Land Acquisition V. Mst. Katiji (167 Itr 471) To Contend That A Liberal Approach Should Be Taken In Matters Of Condonation.

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Babbar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

contend that a liberal approach should be taken in matters of condonation. 4. The Ld. DR on the other hand, opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee did not establish sufficient cause. However, she fairly left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. 5. I have

Kuldeep Singh, Vpo Dillow Wali, Distt. Kaithal vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 505/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: The Tribunal Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 370 Days. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application, Supported By An Affidavit, Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. It Was Submitted That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Period Owing To Bona Fide Reasons & Financial Difficulties. The Ld. Ar Pleaded That The Delay Was Neither Deliberate Nor Intentional & Prayed That The Same May Kindly Be Condoned In The Interest Of Substantial Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual)

Section 249(4)

intentional and prayed that the same may kindly be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. 3. The Ld. DR opposed the condonation of delay and relied on the principle of limitation being mandatory. 4. I have considered the rival submissions on the issue of condonation. It is well settled

Jagdishkumar Amrutlal Thakar, Patan vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward -3, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 984/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

right to add, alter, amend, or modify any of the grounds of appeal during the course of the appellate proceedings.” Application for condonation of delay: 3. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 829 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee. The assessee ... Tribunal. Immediately thereafter, the assessee has filed the present appeal before ITAT and has also placed a formal application on record seeking condonation of delay, supported by an Affidavit. In view of the facts highlighted above and considering the assessee’s age, rural background, limited resources, and genuine lack

Dilip Mohandas Devani, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our above directions

ITA 272/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 50CSection 54

sale proceeds of the old property.” 3. At the outset, we note that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, along-with an Affidavit seeking condonation of delay of 140 days in filing the present appeal before us. In the Affidavit, the assessee has stated that although ... filing of appeal before ITAT. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and considering the reasonable cause shown by the assessee, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Dilip Mohandas Devani

Bhavesh K Shah, Akota vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(1), Alkapuri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1188/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 249Section 249(3)Section 44A

order dated 24.03.2025 passed for A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Your assesse requested to condone the delay 'in filling of appeal the delay was inadvertent and unawareness circumstances. 1 hereby requested to provide a genuine ground of natural justice to heard ... held to be insufficient, unsubstantiated, unreasonable and hence unacceptable. The appellant has failed to demonstrate reasonable cause or exceptional circumstances to warrant condoning the delay. Therefore, the condonation of delay in filing the appeal is denied in the interest of justice, equity, and procedural discipline. 6. Having regard to above

Jagdish Amrutlal Thakar, Patan, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward -3, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1046/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha, Ahmednagar vs. DCIT Exemption, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2688/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 10Section 11Section 154Section 250

limit but has filed the return of income as well as Form No.10BB after the due date of time. Further, the application for condonation of delay filed with the CIT(Exemption) was also rejected by the CIT(Exemption). The Assessing Officer further held that the funds of the trust

Srirampur Nityananda Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Tamluk, Purba Mednipur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 27(3), Haldia

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

ITA 496/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Appeal (NFAC) that the Professional had neither appeared before the Learned Authority in hearing nor had filed Income Tax Return by filing condonation of delay under section 119 (2) (b) of the said Act. That due to non appearance the arguments were not properly placed before the learned Commissioner ... Bench would direct the Appellant to file the income tax return and claim the deduction under section 80P of the said Act by condone the delay under section 119 (2) (b) of the said Act. That the Hon’ble Tribunal Bench would set aside the order of the Ld. Commissioner

Boutique De Fleur, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 45(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 446/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 446/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Boutique De Fleur,………………………………..Appellant Lawgical Consultants, 2D, Bentinck Street, Unit No. A, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aajfb1035D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….....Respondent Ward-45(2), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Dheeraj, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 140Section 142(1)Section 249(2)Section 69A

assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Though the assessee filed a condonation petition before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and prayed to condone the delay, but the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not condone the delay and without condoning the delay decided the appeal on merits as there was no sufficient cause ... position to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals). But the ld. CIT(Appeals) decided the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the inordinate delay in filing of the appeal as well as negligent attitude

A.M. Raja, Pattukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Thanjavur

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

ITA 1392/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.K. Meenakshi SundaramFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

days; and that the assessee has filed an application explaining the cause for the delay supported by affidavit and prayed for condoning the delay. Having gone through the contents of the affidavit as well as the application for condonation of delay, we note that there is reasonable cause ... delay and therefore, we condone the delay in filing of these appeals and proceed to hear the appeals on its merits. 3. The Ld.AR assailing the impugned orders of the First Appellate Authority brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex parte orders qua assessee only

A.M. Raja, Pattukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Thanjavur

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

ITA 1391/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.K. Meenakshi SundaramFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT