“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

Micro Plantae Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 5112/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Micro Plantae Ltd. Acit – 5(2), 4, Unity House, 2Nd Floor, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, 8, M.P. Marg, Opera House, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai – 400004. [Pan No. Aaacm3686P] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 144(1)(c)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 40Section 69

senior departmental representative (Sr DR) of the revenue. The ld AR of the assessee submits that the assess-company has filed application for condonation of delay which is supported with the affidavit of Yogesh Vasudeo Agre, Director of the assessee-company and the chart showing chronology of dates and events ... period of delay is not relevant rather the sufficiency of reason or bonefidies has to be considered while considering the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal. To support submission the learned AR of the assessee has relied upon the following decision.  Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji

Suresh Soni, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-59(6), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 290/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 290/Del/2025 (A.Y 2017-18) Suresh Soni Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1/14478-A, Ram Nagar 59(6), Delhi Extension, Mandoli Road, Circle- 1(2) (1) Shahadra, Delhi-110032 Delhi Pan: Conps5340J Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025

Section 115BSection 69A

material available on record. 4. There is a delay of 536 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed application for condonation of delay contending that that Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order dismissing the Appeal of the Assessee and the Assessee was unaware of passing ... know belatedly which resulted in filing the present Appeal with a delay. For the reason stated in the affidavit in support of condonation of delay, the delay in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that the Assessee has not participated

Vedanta Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 759/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Harmeet Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 254

appeal in the event assessee’s declaration made under VSVS is not accepted, the Registry shall not insist for filing of application for condonation of delay, if the Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order is filed beyond time on account of delay in communication of outcome under VSVS. [Revenue

Ntpc Bhel Power Projects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-18(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1254/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

prejudice, the Appellant is entitled to consider the expenditure on these assets as revenue expenditure. 3. The assessee has filed the application for condonation of delay of 852 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has submitted that the manager finance was official tour and leave during the period from ... relevant factor. ……………. From the above we note that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the above case was pleased to condone the delay for 20 years approximately by holding that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within

Omax Minerals Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

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

ITA 418/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 415, 416, 417 & 418/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Omax Minerals Private Limited C/O. Subhash Agrawal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1 Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700 069 Pan: Aabco5774H ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 5

26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025, had observed that a justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income ... Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. That in the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 3. case of Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil

Omax Minerals Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

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

ITA 417/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 5

Omax Minerals Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

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

ITA 416/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 5

Omax Minerals Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

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

ITA 415/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 5

Ranjeet Singh Rathod, Raipur vs. ITO, Raipur

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

ITA 386/RPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.386/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ranjeet Singh Rathod Shree Chamunda Mobile, Mahadev Ghat Road, Sundar Nagar Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)-492 013 Pan: Aizpr9224J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Makhija, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 5

26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025, had observed that a justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income ... Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. 4 Ranjeet Singh Rathod Vs. ITO-4(1), Raipur That in the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 5. case

Triloki Nath Mishra, Raigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Raigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 185/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.185/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Triloki Nath Mishra House No.34, Bar Chowk, Chotiguda, Raikera, Raigarh-496 111 (C.G.) Pan: Aovpm4665G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Raigarh (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 250Section 250(6)

Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 355/RPR/ 3 Triloki Nath Mishra Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Raigarh (C.G.) 2024 along with application for condonation of delay of 173 days. 7. That however on being so advised, I have also filed rectification application u/s.154 of the Act on 08/10/2024 before

Rajasthan Parisshad, Rourkela vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 225/CTK/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bajoria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80G

A.Y.2024-2025. 2. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 38 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons for delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection ... condone the delay. Accordingly, delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee has registration u/s.12A of the Act w.e.f.16.10.1984 vide an order dated

Mithilesh Kumar Aakela, Aurangabad vs. ITO, War-3(3), Aurangabad

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

ITA 195/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 195/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Mithilesh Kumar Aakela,…………...….………Appellant S/O Mahendra Singh Pouthu, Aurangabad-824101, Bihar [Pan:Atepa0896R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-3(3), Aurangabad, 2Nd Floor, R.J. Palace, Raikashinath More, Gaya-823001, Bihar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

filing the appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. However, the assessee filed a condonation petition before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 82 days mentioning that the assessee was not aware of any notices of hearing and the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). When ... appeal, due to that there was a delay of 82 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

Anup Kumar HUF, Patna vs. ACIT, Cent. Cir-1, Patna

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

ITA 192/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 192/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Anup Kumar Huf,…………………...….………Appellant 4A, Narayan Nilayam Apartment, Road No. 6 Rajendra Nagar, Patna-800016 Bihar [Pan:Aahha5422R] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax....Respondent Central Circle-1, Patna

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 246Section 251Section 5

filing the appeal by the assessee before the ITAT. However, the assessee filed a condonation petition before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 45 days mentioning that the delay occurred due to the fact that rectification of the order of ld. Addl/JCIT(Appeals) was filed ... view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 45 days. Hence the delay is condoned. 4. The facts in brief are that a survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were carried

Dharmendra Kumar, Patna vs. ITO Ward 4(2), Patna

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

ITA 709/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 709/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Dharmendra Kumar,…………………...….………Appellant E/74, Krishna Building, Patliputra Road, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Anppk4627D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-4(2), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 4Th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800001, Bihar

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 69A

days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed a condonation petition before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 336 days mentioning that the delay occurred due to spread of pandemic of novel coronavirus and following lockdown announced by our Hon’ble Prime Minister ... 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

Patteppadam Rural Cooperative Society Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Thrissur

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

ITA 392/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Patteppadam Rural Cooperative Society Ltd. .......... Appellant Kottanellur P.O., Thrissur 680662 [Pan: Aaaap3007B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri C.A. Jojo, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 17.12.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That That Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 13.02.2021 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs. 85,810/- After Claiming

For Appellant: Shri C.A. Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

outset there is a delay in filing the appeal by 561 days. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay by stating that the matter was entrusted to the Secretary of the Society, Mr. Shaji P.R., who subsequently fell ill due to cancer and succumbed to death ... Thus he submitted that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay, in the absence of any evidence contrary, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant society is prevented by sufficient reasonable cause

Kumarapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No 2147, Karthikappally vs. ITO, Ward 2, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 391/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Kumarapuram Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kumarapuram Village, Thamalakkal P.O. Haripad, Alappuzha 690549 [Pan: Aaabk0740M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Sabu, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sabu, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

fell in gross error in not considering the application filed u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act before the CBDT seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It is further submitted that the appellant could not file the return of income within the prescribed period on account of factors

Avinissery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd No R 689, Anakallu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thrissur

ITA 382/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoand Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

submitted that there is a delay of 15 days in filing the instant appeal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay citing valid and proper reasons. After considering the averments made in the application, we condone the delay in the appeal. 3. Brief Facts of the Case

Shivnarayan Rajput, Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Itarsi, Aaykar Bhawan, Itarsi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 771/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishivnarayan Rajput, Ito, Ward-1, बनाम/ House No.33

Section 144Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 253

interalia contended at the outset that there is delay of 87 days in filing the instant second appeal and in this regard a condonation of delay application is placed on record and the attention was invited to para 7 of the said application wherein the following averments were made ... delay of 87 days be condoned in the interest of justice. An affidavit dated 05.01.2025 is too placed on record in support of condonation of delay. The Ld. DR appearing for Revenue fairly submitted that the Revenue has no objection if the delay is condoned. Accordingly this Tribunal condones

Santosh Chaturvedi, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CPC, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh

ITA 697/IND/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 250Section 253Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

appeal of the assessee on grounds stated therein. The core ground and reasons for dismissal of first appeal under the Act was non condonation of delay in preferring the first appeal within the statutory time limit. In para 7.9 and 8 of the "impugned order” it is held ... follows:- “7.9 In view of the above discussions and decisions, the request for condonation of delay is rejected as the same is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 249(2) of the I.T Act and therefore the appeal is dismissed. Since the appeal has been found

Santosh Chaturvedi, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bhopal

ITA 693/IND/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 250Section 253Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B