“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

Shishir Kumar Das, Hyderabad vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle-Amrawati, Amravati

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

ITA 268/NAG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Smt. Veena Agrawal, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

matter be heard on its merits in the interest of justice.” 4. Though the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee qua condonation of delay, however, this Court by considering the reasons stated by the Assessee for condonation of delay as genuine, Mr. Shishir Kumar Das bonafide and unintentional ... inclined to condone the delay, thus the delay is condoned. 5. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that there was delay in depositing the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 37,16,451/- which resulted

Shishir Kumar Das, Hyderabad vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle-Amrawati, ITO Building, Amrawati

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

ITA 267/NAG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Smt. Veena Agrawal, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Shishir Kumar Das, Hyderabad vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle-Amrawati, Amravati

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

ITA 266/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Smt. Veena Agrawal, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Parvez Sheikh, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 253/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 250

right of appeal. L. In view of the above bona fide and reasonable cause, I pray that this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously condone the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice and equity. Hence, there is an unintentional delay in filing the appeal before your Honour ... challenge the assessment order passed by the learned CIT(A) by way of appeal filed before your Honour with a request for condonation of delay. In view of this, it is prayed that the delay of 363 days may kindly be condoned in order to render the justice.” 3. Though

Sri Guru Rajendra Suri Jain Aradhana Bhavan Trust, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Guntur

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

ITA 7/VIZ/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.7/Viz/2025

Section 12A

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 (Exemptions), Hyderabad passed order ... beyond the control of the appellant. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. Therefore, the appellant prays the hon'ble ITAT to kindly condone the delay and pass appropriate orders in the interest of rendering substantial justice.” 3. On perusal of the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee

Gangunaidu Sabbavarapu, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhpatnam

ITA 177/VIZ/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(37)Section 250Section 254Section 96

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 ... application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 5. The assessee has filed with us an application for admission of certain additional evidence under Rule

Binoy John, Trivandrum vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Cochin, Cochin/Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed on grounds of delay and latches

ITA 855/COCH/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Binoy John .......... Appellant Tc 2/391, Puthnveetil, Ulloor, Medical College P.O., Thiruvananthapuram 695011 [Pan: Acppj3562K] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Central, Cochin Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sundarasan S., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Cochin (Pr. Cit) Dated 25.03.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Doctor Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Salary’ & Also A Director In The Company Credence Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. No Regular Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed By The Appellant. Subsequently, Based On The Information Received From The Acit

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR

Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 5

that there is a delay of 130 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal stating as under: - “2) That I received the order of the Hon. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kochi under ... Binoy John appeal is getting filed before this Hon'ble ITAT on date 04-10- 2024 accompanied by an application for condonation of delay as provided under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 7) That in this way there is a delay of 130 days for which an application

Planex Projects and Constructions Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikode

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

ITA 844/COCH/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2019-20 Planex Projects & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant No. Xxv/4, Kerala State Houseing Building Changampuzha Nagar,South Kalamassery 682 [Pan: Aagcp3634A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-1(1) & Tps, Kozhikode Appellant By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat [Cit(A)] Dated 10.07.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Execution Of Civil Contracts. The Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Was Filed On 30.10.2019 Declaring Nil Income. The Same Was Revised On 06.06.2020 At Nil Income. The 2 Planex Projects & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Said Return Of Income Was Processed By The Cpc U/S. 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Vide Intimation Dated 22.09.2020 After Making Adjustment Of Unpaid Gst Of Rs. 67,54,054/-.

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 43B

that there is a delay of 20 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the company is not operational and all the staff left service and there ... averments made in the condonation petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the amount of GST, which remains unpaid

Janatha Charitable Society, Kannur vs. ITO, Circle-1, Kannur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches

ITA 842/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Janatha Charitable Society .......... Appellant Vellur P.O., Taliparamba, Kannur 670346 [Pan: Aaatj1840K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Circle – 1, Kannur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2025 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, Dated 22.09.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Engaged In The Business Of Procuring & Marketing Of Milk & Production Of Allied Products. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 08.09.2017 Declaring Income Of Rs. 4,90,21,490/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was 2 Janatha Charitable Society Completed By The Ito, Circle-1, Kannur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 25.12.2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 5,07,16,894/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made Addition On Account Of Cash Deposit Made In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) During Demonetisation Period Of Rs. 12,12,419/- For The Failure Of The Appellant To Discharge The Onus Of Proving The Source Of Cash Deposit.

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

Section 143(3)

outset we find that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 310 days. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay stating that the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) was served through email and the appellant had came to know

Punnayurkulam Service Co Operative Bank Ltd No P 417, Punnayurkulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Guruvayur

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

ITA 1053/COCH/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2023-24 Punnayurkulam Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Punnayurkulam, Thrissur 679561 [Pan: Aacap6129J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1 & Tps .......... Respondent Guruvayur Appellant By: Shri Ramdas M., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2025

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

time of hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay before the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, which is pending disposal. We are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has no power to condone

Laila Agencies, Pathanamthitta vs. ITO, Ward 2, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches

ITA 1048/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Laila Agencies .......... Appellant Paliakara, Thiruvalla 689101 [Pan: Aaefl0921D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 .......... Respondent T.K. Road, Thiruvalla 689101 Appellant By: Ms. Krishna K., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)(ii)Section 147Section 148

delay had occurred on account of dispute with the previous counsel without substantiating the same. The CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset we find that there ... delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by 236 days. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that since the appellant was out of business and the order passed by the CIT(A) was not noticed by it. 6. We have heard

G N Adgaonkar Jweles, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 660/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.660/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5

Registry has informed that there is delay of 172 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee giving rise to delay in filing the appeal and the same reads as follows : “1. The appellant submits that in the present ... technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits by adopting a liberal approach towards ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the delay. The Court considering an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal

Minhaj Educational & Welfare Trust, Thane vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 404/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025

For Appellant: Dr. K ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas S. Mundhe

Section 12Section 12ASection 143Section 36A(3)Section 80G

Appellant's Managing Trustee, Mr. MOHAMMED RAFIQUE ABDUL LATEEF SHAIKH has filed an affidavit to support his bona fide belief and to condone the delay in filing the Appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. 14. The delay that occurred in filing an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune ... Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) it was held that "Sufficient cause" for the purpose of condonation of delay should be interpretated with a view to do even-handed justice on merits in preference to approach which scuttles a decision on merits. The expression

Minhaj Educational & Welfare Trust, Thane vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 403/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025

For Appellant: Dr. K ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas S. Mundhe

Section 12Section 12ASection 143Section 36A(3)Section 80G

Minhaj Educational & Welfare Trust, Thane vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 402/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025

For Appellant: Dr. K ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas S. Mundhe

Section 12Section 12ASection 143Section 36A(3)Section 80G

Minhaj Educational & Welfare Trust, Thane vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 401/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025

For Appellant: Dr. K ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas S. Mundhe

Section 12Section 12ASection 143Section 36A(3)Section 80G

9X Media Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 3191/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Tribunal without preferring any appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal preferred by the Assessee were, therefore, not maintainable. Responding to the aforesaid submissions the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee has preferred appeal before the Tribunal since the demand notice issued under Section 156 of the Act made reference to filing appeal before the Tribunal. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, it was further sub

For Appellant: Shri Manoj RaghaniFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta

Section 143(3)Section 156Section 246ASection 250Section 254

challenge the Assessment Order in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In case the Assessee moves application seeking condonation of delay, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) shall adjudicate the same after taking into consideration the time spent by the Assessee in pursuing the present appeals before this

9X Media Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 3190/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Manoj RaghaniFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta

Section 143(3)Section 156Section 246ASection 250Section 254

Mrs. Roma Prakash Chhugani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 24(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2805/MUM/2025[2805]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 69C

assessee obtained copy of assessment order in the month of March 2020 and appeal was filed before CIT(A). The assessee sought condonation of delay in filing appeal. On merit the assessee submitted that investment in the property was made by his son. His son purchased the property

Shiva Ads(India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 11(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2360/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh , A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R

pertaining to AY 2013-14. 2. The appeal is barred by limitation. The learned D/R strongly objected for the condonation of delay and the ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for not filing the appeal on time. In his petition, supported