“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

Chandrashekhar Bagade, Pune vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 958/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Chandrashekhar Bagade Ito, Ward 5(1), Pune F 5, Windmill Village, Vs. Opp Ambrosiya, Paud Road, Pune – 411021 Pan: Amxpb8229M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sharad A Vaze Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

filing of the appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed the condonation application along with an affidavit 2 requesting for condonation of delay. The contents of the affidavit filed along with the condonation application read as under: “1. That I am assessed to tax under PAN AMXPB8229M ... deleted. 5. The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly objected to the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee for condonation of delay. 6. After hearing both sides and considering the contents of the condonation application filed along with the affidavit, we are satisfied that there

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 766/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

earlier Circular/Instruction issued in this regard, and with a view to expedite the disposal of applications filed by such trusts or Institutions for condoning the delay in filing Form no. 108 and in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2) of the Act, the Central Board of Direct ... filing Form no. 10B for years prior to AY 2018-19, the Commissioners of Income tax arc authorized to admit such applications for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. The Commissioners will while entertaining such belated applications in filing Form no.10B shall satisfy themselves that

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 765/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 763/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 762/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

Indian Medical Association Pune Branch, Shukrawar Peth vs. DCIT Exemption Circle Pune, Swargate

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 761/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

Bhagavan Devaram Patil, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1447/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

passed u/s.144 of the Act. 2. Registry has informed that the instant appeal is time barred by limitation by 577 days. Application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as follows : “I am an agricultural fresh fruit banana trader and broker and was not acquainted with ... Devaram Patil This resulted a delay of 598 days in filling the appeal before ITAT. I pray before this Hon'ble bench to condone the delay in filling the appeal and to admit the appeal.” 3. After hearing both the sides and going through the averments made in the condonation

Dharmender Sharma, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward -4(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 807/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, Bhupesh Kumar DandFor Respondent: MS. Helen Ruby Jesindha, Sr. AR

appeal before the Tribunal may please be condoned in the interest of justice. The Learned DR did not strongly object to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the affidavit and petition filed by the assessee seeking ... condonation of delay of 9 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. We are satisfied with the reasons explained by the assessee in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, we condone the delay of 9 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit

Nampalli Temple Trust, Kandi Village vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 793/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, RajsekharFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 12A

insertion of proviso to 12A(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where, the appellant can file an application with reasons for condonation of delay in filing of application. Since the assessee neither explained the case with relevant details nor filed any petition for condonation of delay, the 5 ITA.No ... evidences to prove carrying-out charitable activities in accordance with it’s objects. Further, the assessee claims to have filed a petition for condonation of delay in terms of amended provisions which is applicable 8 ITA.No.793/Hyd./2025 from 01.10.2024. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case

Padmavathi Morthala, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 704/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, Sai KumarFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit before the Tribunal. We are satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee and, therefore, condone the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Briefly stated facts of the case ... mentioned in Form-35. However, the assessee did not file any reply/documentary evidences in support of it’s claim nor filed petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). Therefore, the learned CIT(A), in 5 ITA.No.704/Hyd./2025 absence of filing the appeal

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Emaar Hills Township Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 425/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

condoned in the interest of justice. 3. CA, K C Devadas, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, on the other hand, strongly opposed for condonation of delay. He submitted that, it is the settled position of law that, condoning the delay is the discretionary power of the Court/Tribunal and unless ... until there is a ‘sufficient cause’ to the satisfaction of the Tribunal, the Court/Tribunal shall not exercise it’s discretionary power for condonation of delay. Since, in the instant appeal, the Revenue has not brought on record ‘sufficient cause’, the delay of 96 days in filing of the appeal before

Aa281 Urachikottai Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Erode

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

ITA 650/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.650/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aa281 Urachikottai Primary The Dy. Commissioner Of Agricultural Cooperative Credit Vs. Income Tax, Society Ltd., Circle-1, Kuruppanayakkanpalayam P.O., Erode. Bhavani, Erode – 638 301. [Pan:Aafaa 7568R]

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A (virtual)For Respondent: Shri M.Mohan Babu, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 69A

which was subsequently withdrawn on 03.02.2020 in order to avail the statutory appellate remedy. The Ld. A.R further submitted that a petition for condonation of delay along with a copy of the writ petition was filed before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider

Marine Drishti and Coastal Foundation, Goa vs. CIT (Exemption), Bangalore, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 456/BANG/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri E. Shridhar, D.R

Section 12ASection 253Section 80G

days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. of the assessee drew our attention to an application for condonation of delay dated 27/02/2025 along with the affidavits of the Trustee director as well as the Chartered Accountant in original sworn before the notary public on 01.03.2025 stating ... great hardship and irreparable injury and on the other hand, no hardship or injury would be caused to the revenue if condonation of delay is allowed and accordingly prayed that such unintended delay may be condoned as there is sufficient cause and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication

Marine Drishti and Costal Foundation, Goa vs. CIT (Exemption), Bangalore, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 455/BANG/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri E. Shridhar, D.R

Section 12ASection 253Section 80G

Marine Drishti and Costal Foundation, Goa vs. CIT (Exemption), Bangalore, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 454/BANG/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri E. Shridhar, D.R

Section 12ASection 253Section 80G

Gunnebo India Employees Provident Fund, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4193/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2016-17 Gunnebo India Employees Income Tax Officer, Provident Fund, Ward-1(1), Unit No.2, 1St Floor, Vs. Thane-400601. Akruti Smc, Next To Msrtc Depot, Lbs Marg, Khopat, Thane (W), Mumbai-400601. Pan : Aaaas5921K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Hemlata Bhungare For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-8, Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 28-02-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 54 Days In Filing The Appeal As Pointed Out By The Registry. After Hearing Both The Parties & Taking Into Consideration The Affidavit Placed On Record Seeking Condonation Of Delay, We Find That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay

For Appellant: Ms. Hemlata BhungareFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR

Section 10(25)Section 143(3)

appeal as pointed out by the Registry. After hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the affidavit placed on record seeking condonation of delay, we find that there was reasonable cause for the delay 2 in filing the present appeal and hence, the delay is hereby condoned and appeal

Meeta Navin Rathod, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(2)(6), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4152/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri)

filing present appeals before this Tribunal of about 170 days to 2 months respectively. The affidavit of assessee along with application seeking condonation of delay has been filed as under: 3 ITA No. 4151 & 4152/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Meeta Navin Rathod Affidavit in ITA no. 4151/Mum/2025

Meeta Navin Rathod, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(2)(6), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4151/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri)

Sujan Gopal Mukherji, Mumbai vs. Ward 22(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4149/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

present appeal is delayed by 200 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay. In the affidavit, the assessee submitted that he is a senior citizen aged about 80 years and has been undergoing continuous medical treatment at Lilavati Hospital, Mumbai ... considered view that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal within the limitation period. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal. 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – “1. Reopening is Bad in Law The learned

The Oriental Insurance Employees Co Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 17(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4144/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri)

Section 143(2)Section 274Section 80P

submitted that there is a delay of about 150 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee furnished application seeking condonation of delay along with affidavit in support thereof. The assessee in affidavit explained that the appellate order dated 19/11/2024 and related 3 ITA No. 4144/Mum/2025 ... Ld.AO. Thereafter, necessary steps were taken leading to filing appeal on 18/06/2025. 2.3 On the contrary, the Ld.DR though vehemently opposed the condonation of delay was of the opinion that the issue should be decided on merits. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light