← 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

Vesava Koli Samaj Shikshan Sanstha, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption) Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 4018/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh/Akshay PawarFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 10Section 12ASection 271B

observe, both the appeals have been filed with delay of 15 days. 3. Before us, the assessee has furnished an application seeking condonation of delay. Having taken note of the reasons explaining the delay in filing the appeals, we are satisfied 2 ITA Nos. 4017 & 4018/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19) Vesava ... Koli Samaj Shikshan Sanstha vs. ITO(E) that the delay is bona fide. Hence, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 4. At the outset, we will deal with the quantum appeal, being ITA No. 4107/Mum/2025. The dispute basically is with regard

Vesava Koli Samaj Shikshan Sanstha, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption) Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 4017/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh/Akshay PawarFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 10Section 12ASection 271B

observe, both the appeals have been filed with delay of 15 days. 3. Before us, the assessee has furnished an application seeking condonation of delay. Having taken note of the reasons explaining the delay in filing the appeals, we are satisfied 2 ITA Nos. 4017 & 4018/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19) Vesava ... Koli Samaj Shikshan Sanstha vs. ITO(E) that the delay is bona fide. Hence, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 4. At the outset, we will deal with the quantum appeal, being ITA No. 4107/Mum/2025. The dispute basically is with regard

Palm Court M Premises Co Operative Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 41(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for stati...

ITA 3831/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80P(2)

Assessment Year 2020-21, the delay noted was 21, the delay noted was 1138 days. The Ld. CIT(A), while declining to condone the delay, 1138 days. The Ld. CIT(A), while declining to condone the delay, 1138 days. The Ld. CIT(A), while declining to condone the delay ... ready reference, the request pertaining to A.Y. 2018 For ready reference, the request pertaining to A.Y. 2018 reproduced hereunder: reproduced hereunder: “REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN THE MATTER OF PALM COURT "M" PREMISES CO- IN THE MATTER OF PALM

Palm Court M Premises Co Operative Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 41(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for stati...

ITA 3830/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80P(2)

Assessment Year 2020-21, the delay noted was 21, the delay noted was 1138 days. The Ld. CIT(A), while declining to condone the delay, 1138 days. The Ld. CIT(A), while declining to condone the delay, 1138 days. The Ld. CIT(A), while declining to condone the delay ... ready reference, the request pertaining to A.Y. 2018 For ready reference, the request pertaining to A.Y. 2018 reproduced hereunder: reproduced hereunder: “REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN THE MATTER OF PALM COURT "M" PREMISES CO- IN THE MATTER OF PALM

Lintas Employees Recreation Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3747/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Year 2021-2022 The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits of the case, and erred in not condoning the delay of 390 days in filing the appeal against the Intimation u/s.143(1) dated 28- 12-2022, which was filed ... failed to take into consideration the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal. The reasons assigned for rejection nor refusing the condonation of delay, are unjustified and contrary to the principles of natural justice. GROUND NO.2: ADDITION IN AN INTIMATION ORDER U/S.143(1) The learned CIT(A) failed

Sahyadri Renewable Energy Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 3661/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.3661/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sahyadri Renewable V/S. Income Tax Officer Energy Private बिाम Pratishtha Bhava, 3Rd & 4Th Limited. Floor, 101, M.K. Road, 303, Elphistan House, 17, Mumbai 400020 Marzaban Road, Mumbai 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics2640H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Rajendra Agiwal (Virtually Appeared) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Asif Karmali Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agiwal (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali Sr. DR
Section 250Section 37Section 57

hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “Condonation of delay P a g e | 2 ITA No.3661/Mum/2025 AY 2014-15 Sahyadri Renewable Energy Pvt Ltd. 1. The Hon’ble Bench is requested to condone the delay ... filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Bench against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC considering the affidavit and application for condonation of delay Grounds of appeal 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals

Kidney Warriors Foundation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 2920/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 2920/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: Na) Kidney Warriors V/S. Commissioner Of Income Foundation बिाम Tax (Exemptions) Kidney Warriors 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill, Foundation, 504, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Vridavan Co-Op Housing Road, Dr Gopalrao Deshmukh Society, Mulund, Marg, Mumbai 400026. Goregaon Link Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai 400080 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aagck9095E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Milin Dattani राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Milin DattaniFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 250

only on the ground of delay in filing of application for renewal. 2. The learned commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) ought to have condoned the delay in filing of application for renewal, in view of the power of condonation of delay having been delegated to the commissioner by the Central ... Since the applicant had filed the application on 10.08.2024, it was treated on account of being beyond time and the application for condonation of delay was rejected. After noting that the assessee had failed to file the application for regular registration by due date despite several extensions granted

B.P. Marine Academy, Mumbai vs. DCIT (E)-1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2710/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 143(3)

noted that the appeal is barred by limitation, having been filed with a delay of 162 days. In support of the condonation of delay, the assessee has filed an 2 B.P. Marine Academy affidavit sworn by the Director of the appellant academy, narrating the reasons for the delay, which

Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari, Bandra East vs. ITO-23(3)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug

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

ITA 2551/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Reshma Mohammed Asim Ansari, Ito-23(3)(1), Room No. 402, Mina Centre Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Building, Ahmed Zakaria Nagar, Mumbai-400012. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Ardpa 8448 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Ravindra Poojary, Adv
Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54

condonation of with the appeal, the assessee filed an application for condonation of with the appeal, the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay supported by a duly sworn affidavit. The delay supported by a duly sworn affidavit. The relevant part relevant part of affidavit is reproduced reproduced ... well settled that liberal construction must be assessee. It is well settled that liberal construction must be accorded to applications seeking condonation of delay, particularly accorded to applications seeking condonation of delay, particularly accorded to applications seeking condonation of delay, particularly when substantive rights are involved and the explanation offered

Masterji & Co, Mumbai vs. ITO 41(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2066/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Sanghvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

outset, we note that there is a delay of six days in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay along with corroborative documentary evidences are placed on record. Assessee has also furnished an affidavit for the same. Perusal of these documents reveal that ... brief delay of six days. Taking into consideration the medical exigency, supported by relevant medical documents on record, we find it appropriate to condone the delay and take up the matter for adjudication. Masterji and Co. AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 5. Assessee is a partnership firm engaged

Masterji & Co, Mumbai vs. ITO 41(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2065/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Sanghvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

outset, we note that there is a delay of six days in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay along with corroborative documentary evidences are placed on record. Assessee has also furnished an affidavit for the same. Perusal of these documents reveal that ... brief delay of six days. Taking into consideration the medical exigency, supported by relevant medical documents on record, we find it appropriate to condone the delay and take up the matter for adjudication. Masterji and Co. AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 5. Assessee is a partnership firm engaged

Moradabad Bareilly Expressway Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1915/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20 Moradabad Bareilly Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax -14(1)(1) Expressway Limited Room No. 432, Aayakar The Il&Fs Financial Centre, Bhawan, Plot No. -22, G Block, Vs. Maharishi Karve Marg, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400020. Bandra-East, Mumbai-400051. (Pan: Aagcm3309R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Mr. Sailesh Sarda. [Employee] Revenue : Shri Umashankar Prasad, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr. Sailesh Sarda. [Employee]For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 198Section 199Section 244ASection 249(2)

where against the question of whether there is delay in filing the appeal, assessee had stated “No”. Thus, in absence of application requesting condonation of delay and failure to provide any reasons for the same, appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine. 4.1 Before us, Ld. Counsel ... take up the matter for its meritorious adjudication instead of disposing it in limine. 5.1 In the given set of facts, we condone the delay at the first appellate stage and in the interest of justice and fair play remit the matter back to the file

Anandbabu Arumugham Nainar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

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

ITA 6398/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20 Anandbabu Arumugham Nainar Deputy Commissioner Of V 9, Swasraya, K D Desai Road, Income Tax, Mumbai S Vileparle(W), Mumbai - 400056 . (Pan : Afnpn9655A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri M. E. Joe, Advocate Revenue : Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri M. E. Joe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 44ASection 69A

noted that there is a delay of 526 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit and other corroborative documentary evidences are placed on record. In the affidavit, it is submitted by the assessee that the Chartered Accountant ... material placed on record and given our thoughtful consideration to the same. Taking into account medical exigency, we find it appropriate to condone the delay and take up the matter for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income on 25.09.2019 reporting total

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Capital Limited (Successor to Tata Cleantech Capital Limited), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3456/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80Section 80I

noted that there is a delay of 45 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal for which a petition for condonation of delay is placed on record by the Revenue. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal of the same and hearing both ... sides, we deem it fit to condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay to take up the matter for adjudication. 4. In this appeal, Revenue has challenged the relief granted by Ld. CIT(A) on the issue

Narshi Gopalji Mange, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2064/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

considered without prejudice to one another. 1. On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, the Appellant prays for condonation of delay in fling the appeal petition. 2. On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of income-tax (Appeal ... present appeal before this 5 ITA No. 2064/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2013-14 Narshi Gopalji Mange Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for seeking condonation of delay alongwith evidences stating as under: “I, Narshi Gopalji Mange, the appellant, assessed at C-502, Woodland Heights, Chandivali Farm Road, Near Forbes Company, Chandivali

Loksatya Media Pvt. Ltd., Shahdara Delhi vs. ITO Ward 15(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3821/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee is barred by limitation as there is delay of 1701 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Considering the averments made in the condonation application, involving covid-19 period the delay in filing the appeal is condoned

Mahashiv Metal & Alloys Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-13, Delhi

ITA 1354/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT, DR
Section 153CSection 253

about 157 days and the registry had, therefore, sent notice to the assessee to remove such defect by filing an application for condonation of delay. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay in respect of each of the appeals, contents whereof is as follows: “1. That

Mahashiv Metal & Alloys Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-13, Delhi

ITA 1352/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT, DR
Section 153CSection 253

about 157 days and the registry had, therefore, sent notice to the assessee to remove such defect by filing an application for condonation of delay. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay in respect of each of the appeals, contents whereof is as follows: “1. That

Mahashiv Metal & Alloys Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-13, New Delhi

ITA 1351/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT, DR
Section 153CSection 253

about 157 days and the registry had, therefore, sent notice to the assessee to remove such defect by filing an application for condonation of delay. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay in respect of each of the appeals, contents whereof is as follows: “1. That

Mahashiv Metal & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-13, New Delhi

ITA 1350/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT, DR
Section 153CSection 253

about 157 days and the registry had, therefore, sent notice to the assessee to remove such defect by filing an application for condonation of delay. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay in respect of each of the appeals, contents whereof is as follows: “1. That