← 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

Gulzar Mohd, Malerkotla vs. PCIT (Central), Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 379/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69B

Registry has pointed out that appeal is time barred by 9 days. After perusal of the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that assessee has been prohibited by sufficient reason for not filing the appeal within the time limit. Hence, the delay is condoned. 3. Originally, assessee

Soleone Tradelinks Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 603/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Malarkodi R., Sr. DR
Section 144

genuine reasons beyond the control of the appellant, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and availability of Accountant. The rejection of condonation, of delay is contrary to the principles of natural justice and deserves to be set aside. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating ... appeal filed by the assessee, on the ground of the inordinate delay of 687 days in filing the appeal. Although an Affidavit for condonation of delay was submitted before CIT(Appeals) stating that delay was on account of mistake of the accountant and challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic

Huseni Stationery & Paper Mart, Godhra vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Godhra

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA 1971/Ahd/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1972/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri B. P. Makwana, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139Section 144Section 148Section 271ASection 69A

Form 35, the assessee admitted that there was a delay of 367 days in filing the appeal and also filed a petition seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal. The assessee in his condonation application submitted that the ex-parte assessment order was served on the income tax portal ... genuine cause. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) refused to ITA Nos. 1971&1972/Ahd/2024 Huseni Stationery & Paper Mart vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 4– condone the delay and held that the appeal was required to be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, as per section

Huseni Stationery & Paper Mart, Godhra vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Godhra

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA 1971/Ahd/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1971/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri B. P. Makwana, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139Section 144Section 148Section 271ASection 69A

Form 35, the assessee admitted that there was a delay of 367 days in filing the appeal and also filed a petition seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal. The assessee in his condonation application submitted that the ex-parte assessment order was served on the income tax portal ... genuine cause. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) refused to ITA Nos. 1971&1972/Ahd/2024 Huseni Stationery & Paper Mart vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 4– condone the delay and held that the appeal was required to be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, as per section

Gautam Labdhai Medical and Research Charitable Trust, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 463/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas S. Mundhe
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

assessee has filed this appeal with a delay. The managing trustee of assessee trust has filed a sworn affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal. On perusal of the same, we are satisfied that the delay in filing of appeal ... delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 2 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The assessee prays to condone the delay of 455 days in filing the present appeal for the reasons beyond its control. The assessee begs to submit an affidavit at the time

Rahul Subhash Naik, Pune vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Pune

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

ITA 1478/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Ashutosh DhootFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 250Section 271A

appellate order had already been passed against me on 31.03.2024. Mr. Agrawal suggested that an appeal can be filed with a request for condonation of delay before the Hon'ble ITAT against the said order. 5. I say that, I immediately instructed him to file an appeal before ... file the appeal within the stipulated time limit. Having regard to the facts of 3 Rahul Subhash Naik the instant case, we condone the delay of 371 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication in light of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Pavan Builcon Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ITO, Ward 4(5), Pune

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

ITA 1317/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1317/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vs Ito, Ward 4(5), Pune Pavan Buildcon Private Limited, A2, Snehal Classic, Opp. Bhujbal Bhavan Lane, Near Agricultural College, Congress House Road, Pune- 411005 Maharashtra Pan-Aaecp9729N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Rupesh Gurunna expired in the year 2022 and 2024 and this caused him mental disturbances. Considering the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay and also taking a liberal and justice oriented approach and in the light of judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ... Apex Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382), we hereby condone the delay of 721 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order is ex-parte

Bastuhara Sahayata Samiti, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 444/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 444/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Bastuhara Sahayata Samiti,……………….…Appellant 27/1B, Bidhan Sarani, Srimini Market, Kolkata-700006, West Bengal [Pan:Aaatb7422R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(2), (Exemption), Kolkata, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsian, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

appeal, due to that there was a delay of 273 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 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 ... stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 273 days. Hence the delay is condoned in the appeal. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 on 22.09.2016 through CPC declaring NIL gross total income

Joy Saha, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 50(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2672/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2672/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Joy Saha,………………………………...….………Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Gcips4019H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………...…….Respondent Ward-50(2), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Manicktala, Civil Centre, Uttarapan Complex, Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700067

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. However, the assessee filed an affidavit before the ITAT dated 20th June, 2025 in support of condonation of delay of 305 days mentioning that the delay occurred due to medical emergencies of his ailing son and had to run back and forth ... before the ld. CIT(Appeals), but the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte. 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

Sukkaran Kalaiselvi, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

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

ITA 358/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sukkaran Kalaiselvi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Old No. 160/2, Ariyur St., Ward 1(6), Salem. Pethanaickenpalayam Po, Attur Tk, Salem District - 636 109. [Pan:Gljpk7754R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 34 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. CIT
Section 147

year 2019-20. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 34 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee

Saleem and Munira Merchant Charitable Foundation, Thane vs. DCIT Circle 15(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 2122/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 12ASection 51

that there is a delay of about 31 days in filing the present appeals before this Tribunal. 2.1 The assessee filed application seeking condonation of delay along with affidavit in support of the same. Scanned and annexed here with is the affidavit the director of Saleem and Munira Merchant Charitable ... Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471. 3.1 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

Saleem and Muinra Merchant Charitable Foundation, Thane vs. DCIT Circle 15(1)(1)9, Mumbai

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

ITA 2121/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 12ASection 51

that there is a delay of about 31 days in filing the present appeals before this Tribunal. 2.1 The assessee filed application seeking condonation of delay along with affidavit in support of the same. Scanned and annexed here with is the affidavit the director of Saleem and Munira Merchant Charitable ... Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471. 3.1 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

Hughes Comtel Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3651/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 40ASection 43B

against the processing order under section 143(1) 2 HCIL Comtel P. Ltd. of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as under: “7.1 First consider the condonation of delay filed by the assessee. The submissions of the appellant are considered ... DCIT (2013) 37 taxman.com 137 is significant which is in favor of revenue holding that by adopting a liberal view in condonation of delay is one of the guiding principles in the realm of belated appeals, but liberal approach cannot be equated with a license to the appeals at will

Altret Industries Private Limited, Saiyedpura Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer TDS CPC, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 855/SRT/2024[2016-201]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2016-201

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

grounds of appeal raised by assessee in ‘lead’ case are as follows: “1. The learned ADDL/JCIT(A) has grossly erred in not condoning the delay & dismissing the appeal ex-party. 2. The Ld. Assessing officer (TDS - CPC) has grossly erred in holding short payment of Rs.10,750/- and levying consequential ... sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both parties on this preliminary issue of condonation of delay. We have also deliberated on the decision relied on by the ld. AR. There was a delay of more than 11 years

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officxer, TDS, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 818/SRT/2024[A.Y. 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

grounds of appeal raised by assessee in ‘lead’ case are as follows: “1. The learned ADDL/JCIT(A) has grossly erred in not condoning the delay & dismissing the appeal ex-party. 2. The Ld. Assessing officer (TDS - CPC) has grossly erred in holding short payment of Rs.10,750/- and levying consequential ... sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both parties on this preliminary issue of condonation of delay. We have also deliberated on the decision relied on by the ld. AR. There was a delay of more than 11 years

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 816/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

grounds of appeal raised by assessee in ‘lead’ case are as follows: “1. The learned ADDL/JCIT(A) has grossly erred in not condoning the delay & dismissing the appeal ex-party. 2. The Ld. Assessing officer (TDS - CPC) has grossly erred in holding short payment of Rs.10,750/- and levying consequential ... sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both parties on this preliminary issue of condonation of delay. We have also deliberated on the decision relied on by the ld. AR. There was a delay of more than 11 years

Altret Industries Private Limited, Altret House, Saiyedpura vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC, Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 815/SRT/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

grounds of appeal raised by assessee in ‘lead’ case are as follows: “1. The learned ADDL/JCIT(A) has grossly erred in not condoning the delay & dismissing the appeal ex-party. 2. The Ld. Assessing officer (TDS - CPC) has grossly erred in holding short payment of Rs.10,750/- and levying consequential ... sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both parties on this preliminary issue of condonation of delay. We have also deliberated on the decision relied on by the ld. AR. There was a delay of more than 11 years

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 814/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

grounds of appeal raised by assessee in ‘lead’ case are as follows: “1. The learned ADDL/JCIT(A) has grossly erred in not condoning the delay & dismissing the appeal ex-party. 2. The Ld. Assessing officer (TDS - CPC) has grossly erred in holding short payment of Rs.10,750/- and levying consequential ... sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both parties on this preliminary issue of condonation of delay. We have also deliberated on the decision relied on by the ld. AR. There was a delay of more than 11 years

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC, Surat

ITA 812/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing) Si. No.

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

grounds of appeal raised by assessee in 'lead' case are as follows: “1. The learned ADDL/JCIT(A) has grossly erred in not condoning the delay & dismissing the appeal ex-party. 2. The Ld. Assessing officer (TDS - CPC) has grossly erred in holding short payment of Rs.10,750/- and levying consequential ... sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both parties on this preliminary issue of condonation of delay. We have also deliberated on the decision relied on by the Id. AR. There was a delay of more than 11 years

Altret Industries Private Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, CPC, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

ITA 811/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing) Si. No.

Section 200A(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

grounds of appeal raised by assessee in 'lead' case are as follows: “1. The learned ADDL/JCIT(A) has grossly erred in not condoning the delay & dismissing the appeal ex-party. 2. The Ld. Assessing officer (TDS - CPC) has grossly erred in holding short payment of Rs.10,750/- and levying consequential ... sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both parties on this preliminary issue of condonation of delay. We have also deliberated on the decision relied on by the Id. AR. There was a delay of more than 11 years