← 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

Mannangkatti Arumugam, Puducherry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Puducherry

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

ITA 4134/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 4134/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Mannangkatti Arumugam, The Income Tax Officer, 122, Nesar Street, Vs. Ward 3, Isravel Nagar, Puducherry. Dhanvantry Nagar, Pondicherry – 605 006. Pan: Amzpa 8424F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Meenakshi Sundaram, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri V. Meenakshi Sundaram, CAFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 250

reasonable cause for condoning the same. 3. On perusing the order of FAA, we noted that the assessee had filed application for condonation of delay along with affidavit stating the reasons that the assessee is a retired policeman and is not fully conversant with modern technology or the procedures involved ... appeal, with a delay. However, the FAA dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that the there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. The Ld.AR before us submitted that the assessee is a retired policeman and is not conversant with

Imtiyaz Ahmad Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7683/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarimtiyaz Ahmad Khan Vs. Fao- Faceless 212, New Bharat Assessment Centre, Compound, Near Kalpana Delhi/ Talkies, Near Baxi Singh Ito, Ward 41(1)(2), Petrol Pump, L.B.S. Marg, Kautilya Bhavan, Kurla, (West), Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex, 400070 Mumbai - 400051 Pan/Gir No. Bkzpk033E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mohammed Shadab Revenue By Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 17.10.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, That The Id. Cit(A) Has Seriously Erred In Law & On The Facts & It In The Circumstances Of The Case In 2 Imtiyaz Ahmand Khan

Section 143(3)Section 250

outset we noticed that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by rejecting the application for seeking condonation of delay. In this regard we noticed that the assessee had filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) which was belated by 1577 days and thus requested for the condonation ... same. 3. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the application filed by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay by holding that the assessee could not furnish the documentary evidences to explain the delay in filing appeal and also could not establish the reasonable cause in filing the appeal. 4. Whereas

Savita Sanjay Marghade, Durg, Chhattisgarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhilai

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

ITA 849/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 849/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14) Savita Sanjay Marghade, Mig-658, Vs Income Tax Officer, Aaykar Bhavan, Padmanabhpur, Durg, Chhattisgarh. Opposite Geet Talkies, 491001 New Civic Centre, Sector 6 Bhilai Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 490006 Pan: Aktpm6715H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2013-14 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.10.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250

under: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax appeals erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal by refusing to condone the delay in filing Form 35 without appreciating that the delay was neither will full nor deliberate and that 1 Savita Sanjay Marghade vs. ITO, Bhilai sufficient ... subjected to tax.” 2 Savita Sanjay Marghade vs. ITO, Bhilai 2.1 The first ground is in relation of the rejection of condonation of delay application by the Ld. CIT(A), whereas the other grounds are on merit of the additions made in the assessment order. 3. The relevant facts giving

Gordhanbhai L Moradia, Surat vs. ITO Ward 1(3)(2), Surat

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

ITA 375/SRT/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.375/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम/ Gordhanbhai L Moradia The Ito V/S. 401, Krishna Vatika Society Ward-1(3)(2) City Light Road Surat – 395 001 Surat – 395 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ablpm 2077 K (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 10/02/2025 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Merely For A Delay Of 2 Days, That Too Without Affording A Single Opportunity Of Requesting For Condonation Of Delay. Gordhanbhai I. Moradia Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Samir Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54B

dismissing the appeal of the Appellant merely for a delay of 2 days, that too without affording a single opportunity of requesting for condonation of delay. Gordhanbhai I. Moradia vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... Counsel has submitted that even the Ld. CIT(A) did not give any opportunity to the assessee to move an application for condonation of delay. He has further brought our attention to the impugned assessment order to submit that even the Ld. Assessing Officer(AO) did not give proper opportunity

Kanan Anilkumar Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(2), Surat

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

ITA 905/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.905/Srt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kanan Anilkumar Patel The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 92, Bhaganagar Society Ward-2(3)(2) V/S. Near Gautam Park Surat – 395 001 Amroli Sayan Road Surat – 394 107 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Argpp 6569 E (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 09/10/2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Without Giving Finding On Merits Of The Case. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Kanan Anilkumar Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18 2 Assessing Officer In Making Addition Rs. 27,40,000/-U/S 68 As Unexplained Cash Credit.

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 68

time-barred by approximately 8 months, however, no note has been put by the Registry in this respect. A separate application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been filed, wherein, it has been pleaded that the Ld. CIT(A) sent the notices on a different email

Rakesh Jayantilal Lakdawala L/H Kalavatiben Jayantilal Lakadawala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), Surat

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

ITA 688/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.688/Srt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 बनाम/ Rakesh Jayantilal Lakdawala The Ito V/S. Legal Heir - Ward-3(1)(2) Kalavatiben Jayantilal Surat – 395 007 Lakadawala 7/4200, Galemandi Suthar Faliya Surat – 395 003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acvpl 6127 E (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 28/06/2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As The Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of The Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Re-Opening The Assessment U/S.147 Of The Act & Issuing Notice U/S.148 Of The Act, 1961. Rakesh Jayantilal Lakdawala L/H.Kalavatiben Jayantilal Lakadawala Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2011-12 2

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148

course of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The appeal is time-barred by 298 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been stated by the legal heir Shri Rakesh Jayantilal Lakdawala of assessee Smt. Kalavatiben Jayantilal Lakdawala that due to death