← All Phrases

“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

Deepak Chhabra, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-49(1), Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 979/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.979/Del./2025, A.Y. 2017-18 Deepak Chhabra Income Tax Officer, E-53A, Mansarover Garden, Ward-49(1), New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Pan: Afdpc9133N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2023 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 115BSection 254Section 271ASection 69A

dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution ex parte in limine without deciding the issues on merits as per law. 4. The condonation of delay in filing this appeal is on the record. It had been stated that the assessee did not receive any notice of hearing through the post ... Delhi High Court has held that in absence of anything malafide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, the Court should normally condone the delay as the intent is always to promote substantial justice following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag

Bhawna Pal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(7), Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 976/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 234ASection 234BSection 250(6)Section 69

Counsel of the assessee prayed for remanding the matter to the AO. To which, the Ld. Sr. DR seemed in agreement. 5. The condonation of delay in filing this appeal is on the record. It had been stated that the CA of the assessee, due to serious illness ... Delhi High Court has held that in absence of anything malafide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, the Court should normally condone the delay as the intent is always 4 Bhawna Pal to promote substantial justice following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions in the case of Collector, Land

Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha, Delhi vs. ITO (Exemption) Ward 1(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1878/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(1)

Mumbai dated 11.07.2024 for A.Y 2020-21. 2. The ld. counsel for the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. Page 1 of 6 ITA No. 1878/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2020-21] Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha 3. Having perused the condonation petition, we find that the assessee has sufficient ... cause for not filing the appeal in time. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. 4. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is the confirmation of action of the CPC in disallowing assessee the exemption u/s 11 of the Income

Gurpreet Singh, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 1873/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal was required to be filed within the prescribed time limit as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, due to unforeseen medical reasons, I could not file the appeal within the prescribed period. The delay in filing the appeal has occurred due to the following medical condition(s):

Section 144

record, it is found that the appeal is barred by limitation for almost 434 days, in support of which, application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, the contents whereof is as follows: 3ITA No.1873/Del/2025 Gurpreet Singh vs. ITO 3. Having regard to the explanation rendered

Mithlesh Kumar Tripathi, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(4), Delhi

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

ITA 4955/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

matter to the AO for proper verification and doing needful thereafter accordingly. To which, the Ld. CIT-DR seemed in agreement. 5. The condonation of delay in filing this appeal is on the record. It had been stated that the assessee did not receive the order vide email or postal ... Delhi High Court has held that in absence of anything malafide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, the Court should normally condone the delay as the intent is always to promote substantial justice following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag

ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi vs. Vikram Electric Equipment P.Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 4651/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shir Mahavir Singh() Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

appeal of the Revenue is filed with a delay of 26 days and the Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal requesting to condone the delay. On perusing the reasons for delay in filing it is observed that the files got misplaced along with ... appeal could not be filed in time by the Revenue. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee do not have any serious objection for condoning the delay of 26 days. 3. Considering the submissions of both the parties and the reasons for filing appeal with a delay of 26 days

Chhaya Masurkar, Balaghat vs. National Faceless Assessment Center Jurisdiction Officer- ITO, Balaghat, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 27/JAB/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrachhaya Masurkar V. National Faceless 1 Ward No.9 Ram Mandir Road, Assessment Centre Katangi, Madhya Pradesh- Jurisdiction Officer-Ito, 481445. Balaghat Delhi. Tan/Pan:Cakpm8662A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) O R D E R (1). The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 13.02.2024 Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred As To “Cit(A)”)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148

medical prescriptions and treatment and hence in lieu of Shree Swamy Samarth Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Appeal Number: ITA No. 237/Mum/2023 decision the condonation of delay in filling appeal should have been given by CIT (A). 5. On facts and in circumstances of the case ... sold during the assessment proceeding and hence CIT -A should have appreciated the gross injustice happening to the assessee and should have condoned the delay so that the assessment can take place on merits. 8) CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that AO has proposed re-opening under section

Rishabh Kumar Jain, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sagar

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

ITA 120/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 253(3)Section 69

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.120/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2016-17 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

Keerti Flour Mills, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Guwahati

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 99/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: the first appellate authority and it was also prayed before him that the deduction under Section 80IE of the Act was due to the assessee and should have been allowed. The Ld. AR stated that due to non-condonation of delay by the first appellate authority, the assessee has been denied a justifiable claim under Section 80IE of the Act. The Ld. AR pleaded that the impugned order should be set aside and either his claim should be adjudicated on merit by this Bench or the matter could be, altern

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80I

single order. 1.2 Right at the outset, the Ld. AR clearly mentioned that for both the years the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 454 days and 180 days respectively (for A.Ys 2020-21 and 2021-22). It was averred that the delay happened because of COVID ... Section 80IE of the Act was due to the assessee and should have been allowed. The Ld. AR stated that due to non-condonation of delay by the first appellate authority, the assessee has been denied a justifiable claim under Section 80IE of the Act. The Ld. AR pleaded that

Shauquat Alam, Guwahati vs. ACIT Cir-2, Guwahati

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

ITA 57/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rohit BhatiFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 250

assessee is not in conformity with the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 6. We observe that, the assessment order was under section 144 of the Act and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed

Shauquat Alam, Guwahati vs. ACIT Cir-2, Guwahati

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

ITA 56/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rohit BhatiFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 250

assessee is not in conformity with the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 6. We observe that, the assessment order was under section 144 of the Act and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed

D P School Society, Nagaland vs. Assessing Officer, Jurisdiction Ward Two(Three)

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 136/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: The First Appellate Authority. Before The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), The Assessee Gave The Reasons For Said Delay As Under:

Section 11Section 12ASection 249(3)Section 250

reasonable cause to justify such a prolonged delay. Mere assertion of “unavoidable circumstances” without adequate supporting documentation cannot be considered sufficient ground for condonation of delay of this magnitude….. In view of the above, and considering that the delay is inordinate and inadequately explained, the appeal is held ... rather than adopting a liberal interpretation while assessing the case of the Appellant society, which is established for charitable purposes, by not condoning the delay of filing appeal and failed to adopt the settled principle of liberal interpretation applicable to institutions serving a non- profit motive. It is a well

Keerti Flour Mills, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3) Guwahati, Guwahati

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 100/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: the first appellate authority and it was also prayed before him that the deduction under Section 80IE of the Act was due to the assessee and should have been allowed. The Ld. AR stated that due to non-condonation of delay by the first appellate authority, the assessee has been denied a justifiable claim under Section 80IE of the Act. The Ld. AR pleaded that the impugned order should be set aside and either his claim should be adjudicated on merit by this Bench or the matter could be, altern

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80I

single order. 1.2 Right at the outset, the Ld. AR clearly mentioned that for both the years the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 454 days and 180 days respectively (for A.Ys 2020-21 and 2021-22). It was averred that the delay happened because of COVID ... Section 80IE of the Act was due to the assessee and should have been allowed. The Ld. AR stated that due to non-condonation of delay by the first appellate authority, the assessee has been denied a justifiable claim under Section 80IE of the Act. The Ld. AR pleaded that

Mahant Pandey, Rohtas vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 182/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 272A(1)(d)

Point no 14 of the Form no 35 filed by the appellant, it has been found that the appellant has not requested for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. 3.2 For the relevant year, assessment order was passed and demand notice was issued on 24.03.2022. As confirmed from ITBA ... appeal against the assessment order. There is a delay of 665 days in filing of appeal but the appellant has not requested for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. Since the appellant has not requested for condonation of delay in filing of appeal, the appeal of the appellant

Mahant Pandey, Rohtas vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 181/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 272A(1)(d)

Point no 14 of the Form no 35 filed by the appellant, it has been found that the appellant has not requested for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. 3.2 For the relevant year, assessment order was passed and demand notice was issued on 24.03.2022. As confirmed from ITBA ... appeal against the assessment order. There is a delay of 665 days in filing of appeal but the appellant has not requested for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. Since the appellant has not requested for condonation of delay in filing of appeal, the appeal of the appellant

Tulsi Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Jaipur

7. Consequently, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purpose and the matter is remanded to Learned CIT(A) for decision afresh

ITA 734/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Ms. Ishika Gupta, C.A. (through V.C.)For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

reveal that the appeal filed by the assessee has been dismissed in limine, as the appellant failed to furnish any sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 41 days in filing the same. 4. From para no. 5 of the impugned order, it is evident that no application seeking condonation ... submitted by the assessee before Learned CIT(A). 5. When confronted with the above observation as to non filing of any application seeking condonation of delay, Ld. AR for the appellant submits that application could not be filed there inadvertently. At the same, she has submitted that the matter

Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru” V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

there is delay of 134 days in late filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay narrating therein the reason for such inordinate delay. 1. That the Appellant has filed an Appeal against the order u/s 250 dated ... interest of justice. 2 PRAYER (a) It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Cou may be pleased to condone the delay of 155 days in filing the Appeal against the order dated 10.07.2024 passed by the learned CIT(E). (b) And pass any other and further order

Asha Charitable Trust, Hyderabad vs. CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being withdrawn

ITA 992/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.992/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25) Asha Charitable Trust Vs. Cit (Exemptions) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaita8561G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca I Vamsi Krishna राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/08/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA I Vamsi KrishnaFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 119(2)(b)

16/04/2025 of the learned CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad passed u/s 119(2)(b) of the I.T Act whereby the application of the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the Form-9A was rejected. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page

India Construction, Diamond Harbour vs. ITO, Ward - 25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2592/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 262 days. An application along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “All related papers of filing of Form No.36 were given to an honourable practicing Chartered Accountant ... been caused due to reasons beyond the Central of the Appellant. In view of the above fact you are requested to kindly condone the delay of 262 days. For this act of kindness the appellant shall ever remain obliged.” 1.2. Considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons

Kmv Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT-CC-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 906/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Mohd. Afzal, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 251(1)

ITAT and hence the same is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the assessee to file correct appeal with an application for condonation of delay. 3. So far as ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are concerned, at the outset, we observe that in both these years, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed