“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

Paniyala Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Paniyala Roorkee vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(5) Now Ward-1(3)(4) at Roorkee, Roorkee

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

ITA 106/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

material available on record. 4. There is a delay of nearly six months in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed application for condonation of delay. For the reason stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned

Shri Sanatan Dharam Shikshan Sansthan, Sriganganagar vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

Appeal is disposed of and the impugned order dated 24

ITA 95/JODH/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Jul 2025

Bench: Learned Cit(E), Jaipur, An Application U/S 12Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), In Form 10Ab To Seek Its Registration.

For Appellant: Sh. Deewakar Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka, CIT(DR)

Section 12Section 12A

Shikshan Sansthan 3. As mentioned above, the impugned order was passed on 24.08.2024. Present appeal is accompanied by an application dated 03.02.2025, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 4. First of all submissions have been put forth on the point of condonation of delay in filing ... 12AB of the Act, came to be rejected for want of registration of the applicant under RPT Act, 1959 . Along with application seeking condonation of delay, an affidavit of the Secretary of the applicant Institution has been filed. It is to the effect that the representative of the applicant

Navpargana Rajpurohit Samaj Bhamdham Trust Kalandri, Sirohi vs. ITO, Ward Exemption, Jodhpur

Appeal are hereby dismissed

ITA 400/JODH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Cit(A). Consequently, Learned Cit(A) Dismissed Both Appeals Being Not Maintainable.

For Appellant: Sh. Bharat Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka, CIT(DR)

Section 270A

assessee before Learned CIT(A), against the concerned impugned orders, the competent authority to consider the prayer of the assessee-appellant for condonation of delay in filing of the appeals liberally, so that the assessee is not made to suffer for the fault on the part of the counsel. Result

Navpargana Rajpurohit Samaj Bhamdham Trust Kalandri, Sirohi vs. ITO, Ward Exemption, Jdohpur

Appeal are hereby dismissed

ITA 399/JODH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Cit(A). Consequently, Learned Cit(A) Dismissed Both Appeals Being Not Maintainable.

For Appellant: Sh. Bharat Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka, CIT(DR)

Section 270A

Kewal Kanwar Bhandari, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 651/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Vide Impugned Order, Learned Cit(A) Has Upheld The Penalty Order, By Observing In The Manner As Under:-

For Appellant: Smt. Raksha Birla, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Karni Dan, Addl. CIT (Sr. DR)

Section 14Section 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

assessment proceedings, relating to the assessment year 2016-17 was not intentional. Another submission by Learned AR is that since Learned CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing of the appeal, penalty order deserved to be set aside on the very grounds put forth for condonation of delay ... other hand, Ld. DR for the department has submitted that the matter of condonation of delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee before CIT(A) is different 4 Kewal Kanwar Bhandari from the matter regarding non compliance non compliance by the assessee with the notices

Shree Digamber Jain Dharm Prabhavana Samiti, Udaipur vs. CIT(Exemtion), Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 435/JODH/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

Section 12Section 12A

granted registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, as mentioned above. Alternatively, he pleaded that the assessee trust may be granted liberty to condone the delay in filing afresh application before the CIT Exemption, with direction to the CIT(E) to examine the matter afresh after affording it adequate opportunity ... liberty to the assessee Trust to file afresh application in prescribed Form for provisional registration u/s 12AB before the CIT Exemption who shall condone the delay and examine the application of the assessee Trust de novo as per the mandate. On getting its provisional registration u/s 12AB

Abdul Rasheed, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Udhampur

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

ITA 657/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

which has emanated from the order of the AO, NFAC dated 27/01/2024, passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act 1961. 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal has been filed belatedly by 41 days. An application for condonation of delay has been ... which he had to comply with the necessary rituals, which has resulted in this delay of 41 (forty one days). He prays for condoning the delay and for admission of the appeal to be heard on merits. The ld. DR had no objection. Considering the facts stated in the affidavit

Shri Mudasir Ahmad Shaksaz, Pulwama vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Anantnag

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

ITA 590/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 590/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69Section 69A

dated 09.01.2024 which has emanated from the order of the AO, Ward Anantnag, dated 17/12/2019, passed u/s 144 of the Act. 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is filed belatedly by 237 days. The assessee has filed the application for condonation, alongwith

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Ashok Parwal, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 53/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 53/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-04, Jaipur बनाम Vs. Ashok Parwal M-57, Mahesh Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ACJPO7256L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Vedant Agarwal, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Ajey Malik, CIT (th. V.C.) सुनवाई क

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik, CIT (th. V.C.)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

days in filing of the appeal by the revenue for which the ld. DR of the revenue has not filed an application for condonation of delay. Ld. DR submitted that though the approval was granted by the PCIT on 24.12.2024 but the appeal was filed online late. The delay

Geeta Niketan Vidya Mandir Samiti, Kurukshetra vs. CIT Exemption, Chandigarh

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

ITA 175/CHANDI/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 175/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2025-26 Geeta Niketan Vidya Mandir The Cit, बनाम Samiti, Exemption, Mohan Nagar, Chandigarh Vs. Kurukshetra- 136118 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aabtg0672R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Kaushal Chopra, Ca For Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Cit, Dr (Virtual) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07. 07.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh [ Herein Referred To As ‘Cit(E)’].

For Appellant: Sh. Kaushal Chopra, CA for Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT, DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

this appeal. The ld. Counsel for the 175-Chd-2054 Geeta Niketan Vidya Mandir Samiti, Kurukshetra 2 Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is reproduced as under: 175-Chd-2054 Geeta Niketan Vidya Mandir Samiti, Kurukshetra 3 3. We have considered the reasoning given ... application dated 14.02.2025 and we are inclined to condone the delay. 4. The ld. DR did not have any objection for this condonation of delay. 5. Brief facts of the case as per the order of the ld. CIT(E) are that an application for registration

Indian Red Cross Society, Bathinda vs. DCIT, (E), C-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 602/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 602/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Indian Red Cross Society बनाम The DCIT(Exemptions) Circle-1, Chandigarh Red Cross Bhawan, Civil Lines, Bathinda-151001, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAATI4900K अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 154Section 250

outset, it is noticed that appeal is late by three days for which the assessee has filed request for condonation of delay on 25.10.2023 alongwith affidavit of the assessee and the reasons for delay is as under:- Date of service of order 02.08.2023 Appeal to be filed 30.09.2023 Appeal filed ... October 2023 was holiday, the appeal was accordingly, delivered to the office of ITAT on 04.10.2023 and, thus, it was prayed for condonation of delay. The CIT (DR) did not object to such condonation. After going through the application and affidavit, we condone the delay. 4. The facts as emerging

Parlapalli Karunakar Reddy, Tirupati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 667/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, E. Phalguna KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for 2 ITA.No.667/Hyd./2025 the delay and pleaded for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons explained by the assessee for not filing the appeal within the time before the Tribunal ... physical and mental problems and also filed medical reports in support of his contention. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee accordingly pleaded to condone the delay of 198 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal in the interest of justice. 3. Dr.Sachin Kumar, learned Sr. AR for Revenue

Tours5 Com, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

ITA 632/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

lower authorities as well as the material available on record. 26. As is discernible from the record, the CIT(A) had declined to condone the delay of 26 days involved in the appeal filed by the assessee firm and thus, approved the view taken by the A.O. TOURS5 COM, HYDERABAD ... Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed that a justice oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering

Tours5 Com, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

ITA 630/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Gayatri Energy Ventures Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 467/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA KC Devdas & CA Swapnil DeshukhFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

should not be condoned. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the reasons for condonation of delay of 321 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. We find that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land ... Acquisituon vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) has laid down certain principles for condoning the delay and also directed the lower courts to follow a lenient approach for condoning the delay. Going by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Sahodhar Reddy Muddasani, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 444/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K C Devdas And Shri C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69A

quite unintentional and inadvertent due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant due to severe health reasons. Therefore, requested the Tribunal condone the delay in the interest of justice. 5 ITA.No.444/Hyd./2025 7. Learned Counsel for the Assessee coming to the merits of the case submitted that ... Rehman, learned Sr. AR for Revenue, on the other hand, at the outset, strongly opposed the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. The Learned DR further, referring to the affidavit filed by the assessee submitted that, although, the appellant claims to have been undergoing medical treatment

Ambabhavani Jettem, Mahabubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahbubnagar

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 604/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148

delay of 11 days in filing the appeal before the 2 ITA.No.604/Hyd./2024 Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit seeking for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by explaining the reasons. He submitted that, his business premises was situated at Jadcherla. After NFAC has dismissed ... fair chances to succeed in it’s appeal. 3. Dr. Sachin Kumar, learned Sr. AR for Revenue did not strongly opposed for condonation of delay taking into consideration of smallness of delay. 3 ITA.No.604/Hyd./2024 4. We have perused the affidavit filed by the assessee for condonation of delay

Nopany Foundation, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 963/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. DR

found that the appeal of the assessee is barred by 247 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay stating sufficient reasons which are not found to be false and the reasons are plausible. The ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection. Thus

Dunigram Jana Kalyan Samity, Birbhum vs. DCIT/CPC, Bengalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 960/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathandunigram Jana Kalyan Samity Vs Dcit/Cpc, Bangalore Margram, Birbhum, W.B. Pan No. :Aaaad 3235 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sumit Ghosh, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. DR

Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 154Section 246A

that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the appeal is against the condonation of delay in filing Form 10B u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act and the ld.CIT(A) cannot adjudicate the issues insofar as an order u/s.119

Indravati Devi Bagrodia Charitable Trust, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1.1, Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 491/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: The Itat The Grounds Are Extracted For Reference: “1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Ao Was Wrong And

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 250

hearing thereof.” 3. Before us, the Ld. AR put forth the argument that there are considerable number of judgments which mandate the condoning of delay in filing of Form 10B. He further argued that the delay was not wilful and happened due to oversight. Thereafter, the Ld. AR proceeded ... instant case is whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee thereby condoning the delay in filing the Form 10B of the Act. The learned Tribunal after going through the facts of the case took note of the latter