“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

Chathannoor Service Co Operative Bank Ltd 2544, Chathannoor vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kollam

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 349/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 Chathannore Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Chathannoor S.P, Meenad, Kollam 691572 [Pan: Aaaac1371K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tps, Kollam .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Sabu C.S., Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025 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 12.12.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The 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. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Return Of 2 Chathannore Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income For Ay 2014-15 Was Filed On 12.12.2014 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P Of The Act. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, Kollam (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 29.12.2016 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At Total Income Of 10,75,79,173/-. While Doing So, The Ao Denied The Claim For Deduction U/S. 80P Of The Act Of Rs. 79,38,585/- & Also Made Addition Of Rs. 9,96,40,588/- Treating The Bank Deposits, Employees Fund Deposits, Etc. As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee U/S. 68 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sabu C.S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal with a delay of 450 days. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay. It is submitted that the notices issued by the CIT(A) were sent to wrong email ID, i.e. sujatha.kanthan@chevronne.com instead of the email

Puthoor Antony Jose, Thrissur vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 822/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Puthoor Antony Jose .......... Appellant Puthoor House, Po Valappad, Thrissur-680567, Kerala. Pan: Abspj1167G Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle-2(1), Thrissur, Kerala. Appellant By: Ms. Telma Raju, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Ms. Telma Raju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 145A

filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In respect of the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay along with the affidavit wherein it was submitted that due to ill health of the Auditor dealing with the appellant’s matter, the appeal could ... sufficient and reasonable cause that prevented the assessee in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit and hence, we hereby condone the delay of 21 days and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find

Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 460/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Pradeep, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40

delay of 22 days in filing the appeal. In respect of belated filing of the appeal, the appellant filed an petition seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit wherein it was stated that due to continuous holidays as well as the appellant being a PSU employees and officers were ... appellant, we find that there is a sufficient and reasonable cause for filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit. Hence, we condone the delay of 22 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 6. Grounds of Appeal No.1 challenges the decision of the CIT(A) to restrict

Bklg Vendors Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Jaipur, Jaipur Rajasthan

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

ITA 415/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma,CA (Thru” V.C.)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 234BSection 68

appeal in limine and, in fact, not admitting the appeal on the grounds that the appellant failed to file an application for condonation of delay. The order passed is flawed due to the lack of proper consideration of the appellant's circumstances and merits of the case. 4. Rs.65 ... parte order, dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine for the reason the assessee has not filed an application for condonation of delay of 76 days. 2.2 During the course of hearing the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard

Vikas Dugar L/H of Late Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur vs. PCIT (Central) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 388/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 263

delay of 284 days in filing of the appeals by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed applications for condonation of delay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit :- “Respected Sir/Madam 1.The appeal is being filed by the appellant, against ... filing and adjudicated by the Hon’ble Bench. 14. It is submitted that courts should adopt liberal approach while dealing with application of condonation of delay, if any, in filing appeals. Reliance in this context is placed on judicial pronouncement as follows: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. Vs. Respondent

Vikas Dugar L/H of Late Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 387/JPR/2025[A.Y.2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 263

Vikas Dugar Legal Heir of Late Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 386/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 263

Shri Poddar Sewa Samiti, Fatehpur vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

ITA 273/JPR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Registry, both the appeals came to be filed after a delay of 300 days. The appellant has also filed separate application seeking condonation of delay in respect of each appeal. With the applications, affidavit of Shri Mohan Lal Poddar, President of the applicant Samiti has also been filed. 5. Arguments ... department has contended that the above said grounds put forth by Ld. AR for the applicant does not establish any ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay. However, at the same time, Ld. DR for the department has submitted that keeping in view non compliance on the part of the applicant

Shri Poddar Sewa Samiti, Fatehpur vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

ITA 272/JPR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Shree Gopal Gaushala Samiti, Dod Sikar vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

ITA 262/JPR/2025[20241-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

Registry, both the appeals came to be filed after a delay of 300 days. The appellant has also filed separate application seeking condonation of delay in respect of each appeal. With the applications, affidavit of Shri Hari Singh, Secretary of the applicant Samiti has also been filed. 5. Arguments heard ... that the above said ground put forth by Ld. AR for the applicant does not establish that there was any “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay. At the same time, Ld. DR for the department has submitted that keeping in view non compliance on the part of the applicant Samiti

Shree Gopal Gaushala Samiti, Dhod vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

ITA 261/JPR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

Registry, both the appeals came to be filed after a delay of 300 days. The appellant has also filed separate application seeking condonation of delay in respect of each appeal. With the applications, affidavit of Shri Hari Singh, Secretary of the applicant Samiti has also been filed. 5. Arguments heard ... that the above said ground put forth by Ld. AR for the applicant does not establish that there was any “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay. At the same time, Ld. DR for the department has submitted that keeping in view non compliance on the part of the applicant Samiti

Jaiprakash Yadav, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, WD, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. (Thr.VC)For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: “Subject: Application for condonation of delay in filing of Appeal in case of Jaiprakash Yadav for A.Y. 2016-17 PAN: ANQPY8792C The impugned ... date of filing of appeal is considered from the date of the order, it is prayed to your honour to condone the delay in filing of appeal. The said delay is due to the fact that the appellant was not aware of the passing of such an order. The assessee

Maa Sharda Kothari Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 93/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : - Maa Sharda Kothari Foundation Commissioner Of 7, Mahavir Bungalows Vs. Income Tax Nr.Prernatirth Derasar (Exemption) Jodhpur Gam Vejalpur Ahmedabad 380 015. Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaatm 7202 Q (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] was rejected, treating the application as premature and non-maintainable. Condonation of Delay 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 319 days in filing the present appeal before us. The registry has pointed ... days from the date of service of 2 the impugned order. In this regard, the assessee has filed a detailed application for condonation of delay accompanied by a duly notarised affidavit sworn by Shri Mitesh Kothari, trustee of the assessee-trust. In the said affidavit, it has been explained that

Anil Manilal Patel, Anand vs. I.T.O Ward-1, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 379/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Anil Manilal Patel Ito, Ward-1 Hariom Bungalows Vs. Anand. Dr.Kurion Road B/H. Civil Court Anand. Pan : Azopp 5693 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Chirag Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr.Dr

For Respondent: Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69

that all notices remained uncomplied due to absence and lack of access to the Income Tax portal. The assessee also prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which was allowed by the CIT(A) in view of the principles of natural justice. Before the CIT(A), the assessee