“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

Arvindkumar Dayalal Chavda, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2 (2) (3), Rajkot

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

ITA 841/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 841/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2019-20) Arvindkumar Dayalal Chavda Vs. Ito, Ward – 2(2)(3), Rajkot 3 – Nilay, Maruti Nagar, Opp. New Aayakar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Krishnam Appartment, Airport Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abzpc0502D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Kumar Pandya, Ar Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2025

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246Section 250

Tribunal, for Assessment Year 2019-20, is barred by limitation by 23 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay ... hearing. ITA. 841/Rjt/2024 AY.2019-20 Arvindkumar D. Chavda 3.At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A), did not condone the delay of 945 days, and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine, without adjudicating the issue on merit. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee

Saileshkumar Maganlal Patel, Surendranagar vs. The ITO Ward-2, Surendranagar.

In the result, both appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 442/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.441 & 442/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Saileshkumar Maganlal Patel The Ito, Ward-2 बनाम Parshavnath Chambers, Surendranagar Navyug Cinema Road, Vs. Surendranagar, 263310, Gujarat Pan : Acdpp2564P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Assessment Year 2016-17, is barred by limitation by 214 days, before this Tribunal. The assessee moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. We have gone through the petition for condonation of delay, and the sufficient cause explained by the assessee, in the petition for condonation ... delay. The learned Counsel adverted our attention to the reasons for condonation of delay, and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 214 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Learned DR for the revenue, opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay

Shaileshkumar Maganlal Patel, Surendranagar vs. The ITO Ward-2, Surendranagar.

In the result, both appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 441/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Jyotiben Rameshchandra Shah, Porbandar vs. ITO, W-2(3), Porbandar, Income Tax Office

ITA 184/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.184/Rjt/2024

Section 144Section 147

barred by limitation of 1132 days. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted a condonation petition, before the Bench, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The learned Counsel stated that same condonation petition was filed before the learned CIT(A) also, however, learned CIT(A) did not condone ... delay and dismiss the appeal of the assessee, on account of condonation of delay. The contents of the petition for condonation of delay, is reproduced below: “With reference to the above, I request you as under: Ex parte assessment order u/s 144 of the income tax act, 1961 was passed

M/S Avinash Kumar, Patna vs. CIT A, Patna

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 570/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Nfac, Delhi With Copy Enclosed Of Statement Of Facts & Ground Of Appeal. But Unfortunately It Is Also Dismissed On 31/08/2023 With The Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1055630751(1). This Order Has Been Issued U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 After 4 Years 6 Months. The Appellant Had Forgotten. The Appellant Was Also Facing Medical Issue Of Family Members & Also Death Happened (Copy Enclosed).

Section 144Section 147Section 156Section 250

filing of the present appeal. The same has been requested to be condoned as under: “Most respectfully the appellant begs for condonation of delay as under That the appellant is in receipt of demand notice issued u/s 156 of Act by which demand of Rs. 51,07,233/- has been ... also death happened (copy enclosed). 2 Avinash Kumar It is therefore requested that your honour would be kind enough to consider the condonation of delay and penalty should be kept in abeyance of the balance demand till the disposal of the case and the appellant may not be treated

Benedict Wilfred, Thiruvananathapuram vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Thiruvananathapuram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 64/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2012-13 Benedict Wilfred .......... Appellant 513, 350 Punchiri, Kottappuram, Vizhinjam, Thiruvananthapuram-695521. Pan: Ahvpb6093J Vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-1(1), Thiruvananthapuram. Appellant By: Shri Shaji V Nair, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Shaji V Nair, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to the belated filing of the appeal, the appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay wherein it was stated that due to the pre-occupied works and the other personal reasons, the Authorized Representative of the assessee ... availability of the AR for the assessee during the relevant period of time constitutes a reasonable and sufficient cause. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 33 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 3. Briefly the facts of the case

Kulasekharapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No.995, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward 2, Alappuzha

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

ITA 62/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kulasekharapuram Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kattilkadavu P.O., Karunagappally, Kollam 690542 [Pan: Aabak9297M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 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 04.04.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 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. The Return Of Income For 2018-19 Was Filed On 25.01.2019 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P Of The 2 Kulasekharapuram Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Of Rs. 6,38,06,361/-. While Doing So, The Ao Denied Deduction U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) By Holding That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Bank & Hit By Provisions Of Section 80P(4) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 63Section 64Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

outset we find that the present appeal is filed with a delay of 232 days. The appellant society had filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay by pleading that the appellant had not received the certified copy of the order passed ... Thus he submitted that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay, in the absence of any evidence contrary, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant society is prevented by sufficient reasonable cause

Pantheerankave Service Co-Operative Bank, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward -2(3), Kozhikode

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 368/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pantheerankav Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Olavanna, Kozhikode 673019 [Pan: Aaaap6394F] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 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 12.12.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That 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. The Appellant Had Not Filed Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2017-18. Based On The Information That The Appellant Made

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

appeal. 5. At the outset there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 92 days. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of obtaining legal opinion on the merits of filing further appeal. Thus he submitted ... that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay, in the absence of any evidence contrary, we are of the considered opinion 3 Pantheerankav Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. that the appellant society is prevented

Peringandoor Service Co-Operativa Bank Ltd, Athani, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thrissur

In the result, we dismiss these I

ITA 230/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Peringandoor Service Cooperative Bank Ltd .......... Appellant 11/102A, Athani P O, Athani, Thrissur-680581. Pan: Aadap3407G Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-2(1), Thrissur. Appellant By: Shri Ramdas M, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ramdas M, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 63Section 64Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

present appeal. 5. At the outset, there is a delay of 327 days. the appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay by stating that the delay had occurred on account of pursuing of alternative remedy of rectification petition U/s. 154 before the National Faceless Appeal Centre ... considered opinion that the appellant was pursuing alternative remedy. In the absence of any 3 Peringandoor service Coop Bank Ltd vs.ITO contrary, we condone the delay of 327 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The issue in the present appeal relates to the eligibility of interest income earned

Thevalakara Farmers Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No.4047, Karunagappally vs. ITO, Ward 2, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 133/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Thevalakara Farmers Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Thevalakkara P.O., Karunagappally 690524 [Pan: Aaabt3597M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 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 07.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 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 Primacy Agricultural Co-Operative Society. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Exemption U/S. 80P Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 63Section 64Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

outset we find that there is a delay of 309 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay by stating that the appellant was not served the 3 Thevalakara Farmers Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. order of the NFAC either through email

Kallumala Agricultural Cooperative Bank Ltd No Hw 14, Alappuzha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 119/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sabu C S, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 275Section 44ASection 80P

outset, there is a delay of 174 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The appellant has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay by stating that the delay had occurred on account of the ignorance of the Income Tax Appellate Proceedings and hence, the matters were entrusted

Kallumala Agricultural Cooperative Bank Ltd No Hw 14, Alappuzha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 118/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sabu C S, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 275Section 44ASection 80P