← 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

Universal Industrial Equipment and Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 350/NAG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 156ASection 254(1)Section 31(1)

Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 349 & 350/Nag/2023 delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay which is supported by affidavit of Nitin Shankarrao Rakhunde, Manager Accounts of assessee company. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee ... decision to make various compliances, certain delay occurred. Such delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. The ld. AR for the assessee prayed for condoning the delay in filing both the appeals. 3. On merit, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that in case of assessee the Hon’ble National

Universal Industrial Equipment and Technical Services Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Nagpur

ITA 349/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 156ASection 254(1)Section 31(1)

days in filing both the appeals. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay which is supported by affidavit of Nitin Shankarrao Rakhunde, Manager Accounts of assessee company. The Id. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee company ... decision to make various compliances, certain delay occurred. Such delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. The Id. AR for the assessee prayed for condoning the delay in filing both the appeals. 3. On merit, the Id. AR of the assessee submits that in case of assessee the Hon'ble National

Charotar Bhal Rize Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 704/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iv)

appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify all or any ground of appeal.” 3. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay of 32 days in filing of the present appeal. The delay is condoned looking into the smallness of delay causing no perceptible prejudice

Charotar Bhal Rize Foundation, Anand vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 703/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iv)

appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify all or any ground of appeal.” 3. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay of 32 days in filing of the present appeal. The delay is condoned looking into the smallness of delay causing no perceptible prejudice

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2616/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) on 04.01.2024, which was delayed by 257 days, along with a request for condonation of delay. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer, contending that the entire income was exempt under ... Appeals), after considering the assessment order, grounds of appeal, written submissions and material on record, first dealt with the issue of condonation of delay. The CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee had failed to establish any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 257 days in filing

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2615/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) on 04.01.2024, which was delayed by 257 days, along with a request for condonation of delay. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer, contending that the entire income was exempt under ... Appeals), after considering the assessment order, grounds of appeal, written submissions and material on record, first dealt with the issue of condonation of delay. The CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee had failed to establish any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 257 days in filing

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2614/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) on 04.01.2024, which was delayed by 257 days, along with a request for condonation of delay. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer, contending that the entire income was exempt under ... Appeals), after considering the assessment order, grounds of appeal, written submissions and material on record, first dealt with the issue of condonation of delay. The CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee had failed to establish any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 257 days in filing

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2613/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) on 04.01.2024, which was delayed by 257 days, along with a request for condonation of delay. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer, contending that the entire income was exempt under ... Appeals), after considering the assessment order, grounds of appeal, written submissions and material on record, first dealt with the issue of condonation of delay. The CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee had failed to establish any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 257 days in filing

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2612/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) on 04.01.2024, which was delayed by 257 days, along with a request for condonation of delay. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer, contending that the entire income was exempt under ... Appeals), after considering the assessment order, grounds of appeal, written submissions and material on record, first dealt with the issue of condonation of delay. The CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee had failed to establish any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 257 days in filing

Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2388/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 10(100)Section 10(108)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 251

2388/Ahd/2025 Jayesh T Sutaria Vs. ITO Asst. Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 - 5– revised return has expired, the appellant may seek condonation of delay from the jurisdiction PCIT and then proceed with filing the revised return. The issue raised in grounds of appeal does not emanate from the order

Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2387/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 10(100)Section 10(108)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 251

2388/Ahd/2025 Jayesh T Sutaria Vs. ITO Asst. Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 - 5– revised return has expired, the appellant may seek condonation of delay from the jurisdiction PCIT and then proceed with filing the revised return. The issue raised in grounds of appeal does not emanate from the order

Moon Technolabs Private Limited, Ahmadabad vs. Additional 0R Joint Commissioner, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1997/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kmble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjaykumar M Khatik, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 250

noted from the records that the assessee was specifically asked, through notice, to explain the delay and to file a petition seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit or supporting evidence. Despite being afforded adequate opportunity, the assessee has not submitted any explanation or request for condonation of delay ... assessee submitted that, given an opportunity, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities explaining the reasons for condonation of delay. Hence, in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall submit

Sunil Subhash Shelar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Nashik

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

ITA 3203/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 44A

have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. With the assistance of Ld.DR, we observe that Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay, even though assessee has mentioned reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time in column 15 at Form No.35. Submissions have been filed ... before this Tribunal requesting for condonation of delay in the grounds of appeal and stated that in the interest of justice, delay may pleased be condoned and the issues raised in the instant appeal may please be restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. 4. We observe

Shree Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5, Sangli

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

ITA 2571/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Smt. Shilpa NC Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

ground that the assessee has not given any reason for filing of the appeal and has not filed any condonation petition for condonation of delay. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds ... book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the proof of affidavit filed by the assessee for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. Referring to pages 2 to 4 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench

Shree Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5, Sangli

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

ITA 2570/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Smt. Shilpa NC Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

ground that the assessee has not given any reason for filing of the appeal and has not filed any condonation petition for condonation of delay. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds ... book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the proof of affidavit filed by the assessee for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. Referring to pages 2 to 4 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench

M/S. Shreyansh Tradecom Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 3063/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 250

perusing the contents of the application, we find that the delay is attributable to bonafide and genuine reasons. Therefore, , we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dismissing ... duly disclosed in the return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) has did not consider the plea of the assessee by not condoning the delay of 878 days and dismissed the appeal without deciding the appeal on merit. After hearing the assessee and the Ld. DR on the condonation

DCIT, Kolkata vs. Himadri Speciality Chemical Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2223/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan&For Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR
Section 115JSection 92C

took quite a long time and accordingly, the delay may be condoned. The Id. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. < Page | 2 ITA No. 2223/KOL/2025 Himadri Speciality Chemical Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone

Chinnasamy Gurusamy, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-4(4), Coimbatore

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

ITA 4075/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 4075/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Chinnasamy Gurusamy, The Income Tax Officer, 2, Kattoor Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 4(4), Kalapatti, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 035. Pan: Akgpg 6263K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor 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 has filed petition for condonation of delay stating the reason that the authorized representative of the assessee handed over the assessment order to the assessee stating that he could not handle ... days. The Ld.AR submitted that the delay has occurred due to late communication of assessee’s authorized representative and hence, requested for condoning the delay. 5. The Ld.DR supported the order of the FAA. 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The FAA had dismissed

Maruthanayagam Saravanan, Dindigul vs. ITO Ward-1 Dindigul, Dindigul

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

ITA 4059/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 4055, 4056, 4057 & 4059/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Maruthanayagam The Income Tax Officer, Saravanan, Vs. Ward 1, No.1/56F, Ponnagaram Dindigul. Adiyanoothu, Dindigul – 624 003. Pan: Bzips 3318F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri G. Akash, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 250

reasonable cause for condoning the same. 3. On perusing the orders of FAA, we noted that the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay stating the reason that the assessee is unaware of the penalty orders being passed by the AO. The assessee, only upon receiving a call from ... submissions and perused the material on record. The FAA had dismissed the appeals of the assessee by rejecting the assessee’s request for condonation of delay of 202 days in filing the appeals. In our view, the reason cited by assessee in its petition before FAA seems quite reasonable

Maruthanayagam Saravanan, Dingdigul vs. ITO Ward-1, Dindigul

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

ITA 4057/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 4055, 4056, 4057 & 4059/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Maruthanayagam The Income Tax Officer, Saravanan, Vs. Ward 1, No.1/56F, Ponnagaram Dindigul. Adiyanoothu, Dindigul – 624 003. Pan: Bzips 3318F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri G. Akash, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 250

reasonable cause for condoning the same. 3. On perusing the orders of FAA, we noted that the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay stating the reason that the assessee is unaware of the penalty orders being passed by the AO. The assessee, only upon receiving a call from ... submissions and perused the material on record. The FAA had dismissed the appeals of the assessee by rejecting the assessee’s request for condonation of delay of 202 days in filing the appeals. In our view, the reason cited by assessee in its petition before FAA seems quite reasonable