“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

Only B2B Ites Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 1197/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1197/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Respondent: Shri Abhay A. Avchat

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

NFAC, Delhi. 2. Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 160 days. Application for condonation of delay has been filed stating the reasons. Ld. DR opposed the condonation of delay. We, 2 after going through the application for condonation of delay and also taking guidance from ... outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 161 days and the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is mentioned in the affidavit signed

Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L, Hyderabad vs. DCIT (Int, Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1242/HYD/2024[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 263

delay of 2,996 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by a duly sworn affidavit, setting out the reasons for such delay. In this regards, the learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that ... fides. 9.6 In view of the above, we are satisfied that the cause shown by the assessee is sufficient and genuine. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 2,996 days in filing the appeal and direct that the appeal be admitted for adjudication on merits. 10. In addition

Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Srl India Project Office (Formerly Pirelli Cavi Sistemi S P A India Project Office), Hyderabad vs. DCIT, ( Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 723/HYD/2022[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2025AY 2001-2002

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 263

Kishor Jethalal Morbia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

ITA 582/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvs. Assessing Officer, Kishor Jethalal Morbia Assessment Unit, 304/310, Kailas Plaza, Income Tax Vallabh Baug Lane, Department Ghatkopar (East), Jurisdictional Mumbai-400 075 Assessing Officer, Ito 27(2)(1), Vashi Railway Station, Vashi Navi Mumbai- 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Aabpm4447J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anant N. Pai, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

Section 250Section 51

claimed as STCG in the Income Tax Return was confirmed. 2. An application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant/assessee stating that statistically there is delay of 88 days and narrated the reasons for filing the appeal after the due date. The application is supported by affidavit ... matters. 7. I state that I am making this affidavit to put the above facts correctly on record to support an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal being moved by me before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 8. I state that the averments made in this affidavit

I K Corporation, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(2), Surat

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

ITA 790/SRT/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.789 & 790/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) I K. Corporation Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ E-407, Krishna Township, Ward -1(3)(2), Surat, Room No.203, Vs. Nr. Govindji Hall, Dabholi 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Road, Katargam, Surat-395 Business Center, Adajan Road, Surat- 004 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfi 2599 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

admitting the appeal filed by assessee on the ground that appeal was filed belatedly although the genuine reasons were given for condonation of delay.” “2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the NFAC has erred in confirming the action ... before CIT(A). 6. There was delay of 437 days in filing appeal before the CIT(A). The appellant has submitted application for condonation of delay, where it was submitted that the affairs of the assessee-firm were handled by Shri Kuntesh Desai, who expired on 11.02.2015 under mysterious circumstances

I K Corporation, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(2), Surat

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

ITA 789/SRT/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

Pradipsinh Ghanshyamsinh Vaghela, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 325/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Tulsian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 250

noted by the Registry to be delayed in filing by 239 days. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay pointing out reasons for the delay. He pointed out before us that on account of ill health of the Consultant of the assessee right from ... were ex parte orders and for the same reason also, the appeal was filed before us belatedly. An application filed before us seeking condonation of delay are as under: “We humbly submit this application seeking condonation of the delay in filing the appeal to the ΠΑΤ. This is to inform

Annu Kumar, Roorkee vs. Income Tax Officer, Derhadun

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

ITA 79/DDN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Annu Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O. Hemant Arora & Co. Subhash Road, Llp 354-B, 30 Civil Lines, Dehradun, Roorkee Roorkee, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan: Bttpk3087N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Pavitra Arora, Ca Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2025 Order

Section 144Section 144B

came to be passed in violation of principals of natural justice. Further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) committed grave error in not condoning the delay of 348 days in filing the Appeal, thus, sought for allowing the present Appeal. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that ... Appeal in delay in latches of 348 days in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Assessee filed letter for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) stating that he did not know about the ongoing assessment proceedings as the show cause notice send via email

District Project Livelihood College Society, Gariyabandh vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Raipur

ITA 273/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 271, 272 & 273/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Chhabda, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 254(2)

account of delay in filing of appeal, which has not been condoned by the First Appellate Authority, even after assessee’s submissions for condonation of delay having justifiable reasons to do so. To clarify further, Ld. AR drew our attention to the relevant observations of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) while ... sufficient cause together with the evidence for the claim made. This has not been done. Therefore, it held that the reasons given for condonation of delay does not tantamount to sufficient cause within the meaning of District Project Livelihood College Society vs. ITO(TDS), Raipur section

District Project Livelihood College Society, Gariyabandh (C.G) vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Raipur, Aykar Bhawan

ITA 272/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Chhabda, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 254(2)

District Project Livelihood College Society, Gariyabandh(Cg) vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Raipur

ITA 271/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Chhabda, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 254(2)

Mota Dadva Mahila Doodh Utpadak Sahkari, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 38/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.37 & 38/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Mota Dadva Mahila Utpadak Sahakari The Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) बनाम At Mota Dadva, Gondal, Rajkot Rajkot Gujarat-360311 Vs. Pan : Aakfm7170M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Ms. Monica Pandey, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Monica Pandey, Sr-DR

Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

Years 2017-18 and 2018-19, are barred by limitation by 295 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The learned Counsel for the Mota Dadva Mahila Doodh Utpadak Sahkari ITA No.37 & 38 /RJT/2025 (AYs : 2017-18 & 2018-19) 2 assessee, explained ... these both appeals, which may be condoned in the interest of justice. 3. The Ld. DR for the revenue, opposed the prayer for condonation of delay. 4. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We note that contents in the petition for condonation of delay, in both

Mota Dadva Mahila Doodh Utpadak Sahkari, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 37/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Monica Pandey, Sr-DR

Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

Sanjukta Varanasi, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 225/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.225/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1(3) Sanjukta Varanasi D.No. 49-46-4/30 Income Tax Office Ramakrishna Nagar Pratyakshakar Bhavan Near Jaggarao Bridge Mvp Double Road Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam – 530017 Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afspv9008E] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: - “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed the order ... reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 166 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 166 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts

Chandra Bosu Babu Ramesh Yangala, Gudivada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudivada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.214/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Chandra Bosu Babu Ramesh Yangala Asst. City Planner Gudiwada, Andhra Pradesh Gudivada Municipality Gudivada – 521301 Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Acspy1662Q] (अपीलधर्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri K. Siva Rama Kumar, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 144Section 250

filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: - “1. The petitioner is the Assessee in the appeal mentioned above ... Appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal was due by 16.11.2024). 7. It is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay and pray that the Appeal be admitted and taken on record, as otherwise great hardship and insufferable injustice will be caused to the petitioner herein

Britg Foundation, Vizianagaram vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 208/VIZ/2025[2022-23 to 2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.208/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2022-23 To 2026-27) Britg Foundation V. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) 22-14-12, Kotlamadappa Street Aaykar Bhawan, Opp. L.B. Stadium Vizianagaram H.O. Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad – 500004 Telangana Vizianagaram – 535002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaetb5357K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Sanjeevarao, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: - “1. It is respectfully submitted that the orders of the Commissioner ... Hence, it is prayed that the Honourable Tribunal, may kindly be pleased to consider the above facts and may kindly be pleased to condone the delay of 90 days in filing the appeal and may kindly be pleased to direct the office to admit the appeal, in the interest

Manisha Jhawar, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -3(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 106/IND/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

were served to assessee by “Assessment Module” of ITBA and not by physical mode. 3. Ld. DR for revenue left the matter of condonation of delay to the wisdom of Bench without raising any objection. He, however, proposed that since the assessment-order is ex-parte, it would be better

Shri Ram Goushala Samiti, Sikar vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

ITA 504/JPR/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2025

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Meena, CIT-DR (through VC)

also rejected. The appeals were filed 29 days after the prescribed period of limitation. The Tribunal held that the applications for condonation of delay are allowed, and the appeals are admitted. Given the subsequent registration of the trust under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, the issues regarding registration

Shri Ram Gousala Samiti, Sikar vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

ITA 503/JPR/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Meena, CIT-DR (through VC)

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

both the above captioned appeals were filed 29 days after the prescribed period of limitation. In this regard, trust has filed applications seeking condonation of delay. First all submissions have been put forth on the point of condonation of delay. 5. Ld. AR for the applicant trust has submitted that ... said ground which led to delay in filing of the appeals. 6. Ld. DR for the department has not opposed the prayer for condonation of delay. goes unchallenged. Keeping in view the abovesaid sufficient cause for non filing of the appeals within prescribed period, and that the appeals were filed

M/S K.N.S. Exports Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 14/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

that he came to know of the passing of the order. Therefore, the assessee was unaware about the order previously and sought condonation of delay on this account. Apparently, the ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay. But thereafter he notes that he issued three notices to the assessee