“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

Ravindra Sadanand Marballi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised

ITA 2262/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Ravindrasadanandmarballi Ito-31(3)(1), Mumbai B-6, Shreeniketan, Pandurangwadi, Vs Kautilyabhavan, Bandrakurla Goregaon East, Maharashtra – 400063. Complex, Maharashtra-400051 [Pan No. Almpm2657E] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 254(1)

order ofld. CIT(A)07.02.2025 for A.Y. 2011-12. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 30 days in filing first appeal. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative ... assessee filed appeal on 13.12.2019. There was a delay of 30 days in filing fist appeal, the assessee filed application for condoning the delay. The assessee also filed application for admission of additional evidence and addition submission. The ld. CIT(A) accepted the additional evidence and remanded the matter

Aditya Sapru, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 9(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed on account of delay

ITA 1421/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody & Shri Dhiren Talati,ARFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 5Section 54

assessee is delayed by 790 days. In this regard a written application alongwith relevant affidavits have been submitted with a request to condone the delay. In the oral and written submissions made, the ld.AR has contented that the delay was unintentional and bonafide. It is stated that the assessee ... deprive a party of the protection of Section 5. “Sufficient cause" is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court for condoning the delay. Courts Page 5 ΙΤΑ Νο. 1421/Mum/2025 Α.Υ. 2013-14 Aditya Sapru, Mumbai have time and again held that when mandatory provision

Manish Kumar Gupta, Rewari vs. ITO Ward-1, Narnaul

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1813/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Narpar Singh, Sr. DR

remitted to the files of the NFAC to give the opportunity of being hearing to the assessee and decide the application for condonation of delay afresh and then proceed to decide in accordance with the law. In ITA 1813, the issue on merits as well as law, are restored

Manish Kumar Gupta, Rewari vs. ITO Ward-1, Narnaul

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1812/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Narpar Singh, Sr. DR

Manish Kumar Gupta, Rewari vs. ITO Ward-1, Narnaul

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1811/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Narpar Singh, Sr. DR

Kuljeet Singh, Karnal vs. ITO Ward-1, Karnal

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1808/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Narpar Singh, Sr. DR

Section 46A

going through the record we find that the appeal of the assessee is filed delayed by 144 days and an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit has been filed deposing that the reason for filing the appeal late is attributed to the fact that the assessee

The Muslim Educational Welfare Society, Etah vs. Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1765/DEL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Narpar Singh, Sr. DR

Section 250

assessee. On perusal of the record, it comes up that the appeal is barred by 22 days and an application for condonation of delay has been filed submitting that due to distance, the assessee, who is a resident of Etah, could not contact his counsel at Agra. Accordingly, the delay

Satish Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-65(2), Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1638/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Satish Kumar, Vs Ito, A9/13A, Ground Floor, Ward 65(2), Vasant Vihar, Delhi New Delhi - 110 057. Pan: Ajvps8737N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohammad Faisal Revenue By : Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Mohammad FaisalFor Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR

Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi. 2. On hearing both the sides, we find that the assessee’s appeal has been dismissed by not condoning the delay. After taking into account the impugned order of the NFAC, we find that in para 2, the NFAC observes as follows:- “2. The assessee ... request for condonation of delay is rejected as the reasons stated by him for condoning the delay is not satisfactory.” 3. Apparently, the NFAC has not given any reasoned findings taking into account the period of delay or the reason cited. At the same time, we find that the NFAC

Reeta Devi, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward -2(1), Faridabad

ITA 1609/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Reeta Devi, Vs Ito, House No.56, Ward 2(1), Sector 84, Faridabad. Kheri Kalan B.O., Faridabad. Pan: Coqpd3122N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR

records. We find that although the assessee has raised issues on merits before the NFAC, the appeal has been dismissed in limine without condoning the delay of 87 days. We further find that the assessee was not show-caused for the same. The NFAC as the First Appellate Authority ... have been given an opportunity to file an application for condonation of the delay. However, the NFAC has straightaway dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay which apparently was not of a substantial period. Thus, the assessee requires to be given an opportunity to contest on merits. The appeal

Neeraj Saraf, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-28(1), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3579/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: NFAC. The Ld. NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee on being filed beyond the period prescribed under the Act, without expressing any opinion on merit of the facts.5. Ld. Sr. DR submitted that no sufficient cause has beenshown by the assessee for condone the delay in filling theappeal. He further stated that the appeal was rightly dismissedby the Ld. NFAC.

Section 148

assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal of 249 days without considering that there was a sufficient cause in not filing the appeal on time. 2. That ... sale of immovable property. 3. The appeal is filed by 2 days delay and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. We, have given a thoughtfulconsideration to the reasons mentioned in the application forthe condonation of the delay. We areof the considered opinion that the assessee

Ankita Agarwal, Jamshedpur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jamshedpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 499/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.499/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ankita Agarwal………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant Near Kali Mandir, Harharguttu, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand-831002. [Pan: Atkpa9502A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Jamshedpur........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 125 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & That The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 125 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the application, we find reasonable cause and that the delay was not intentional. We, therefore, condone the delay

Khurshid Alam, Bokaro vs. ITO Ward-2(7), Hazaribagh

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 496/RAN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi23 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.496/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Khurshid Alam.………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant Jhirkey, Kathara, Bokaro, Jharkhand-829116. [Pan: Ahxpa0635P] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(7), Hazaribagh........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. K. Choudhary, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.04.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 540 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Income From Salary. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,38,770/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass Followed

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 540 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the application, we find reasonable cause and the delay was not intentional. We, therefore, condone the delay

Pawan Kumar, Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Ranchi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 487/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.487/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Pawan Kumar….………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant A/3, Manorama Enclave, Argora, Pundag Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834012. [Pan: Agypk0863F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Ranchi……........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 03.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 15 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & That The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 15 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the application, we find reasonable cause and that the delay was not intentional. We, therefore, condone the delay

Gurmeetsingh Balbirsingh Bhamra, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 287/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya Rozie, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 250

condoned. 5. On the contrary, ld.DR refuted the claim of the assessee. 6. Having considered the reasons stated by the assessee for condonation of delay of 244 days along with the duly sworn affidavit and medical records shows the genuineness of the said claim made by assessee. Even otherwise, there

Gurmeetsingh Balbirsingh Bhamra, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 283/NAG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya Rozie, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 250

Dnyaneshwar Bapurao Chunade, Bhadrawati vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Chandrapur

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

ITA 624/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250

first appeal before him and not giving any explanation with regard to such delay. The assessee in Form No.35 specified the reasons for condonation of delay, which reads as under:– “A. That the Assessee is a Individual, is in service with Bhadrawati Taluka Nagari Sahkari Pat Sanstha Society, duly registered ... hardship or prejudice will be caused to the revenue in case the application is allowed and delay is condoned however if application for condonation of delay is rejected the assessee may lose a valuable right of appeal. In view of above, it is humbly submitted that liberal view be taken

The Jayaswal Basant Lall Shaw Family Trust, Nagpur, Maharashtra vs. ITO Ward - 1, Exemp, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 502/NAG/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 250

Assessment Year (for short, “AY”) 2023-24. 2 ITA.No. 502/NAG/2024 2. Considering the reasons stated by the assessee qua condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the instant appeal, the same is condoned. 3. In the instant case, the assessee is a private discretionary trust and has shown

The Aroor Central Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Alappuzha vs. ITO, Ward -2, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeals and stay applications filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 372/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

that there is delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal of 361 days. The appellant filed a petition along with affidavit seeking condonation of delay, which reads as under: - “1, Meera U Pillai, Principal Officer, The Aroor Central Service Co-operative Bank, Aroor, Cherthala, Alappuzha 688534, do hereby solemnly ... above circumstances, the petitioner most humbly prays that the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may kindly be pleased to condone the delay about 358 days in filing the appeal, accept the same on file and render justice. 9. A separate petition praying for the above relief is submitted herewith

The Aroor Central Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Alappuzha vs. ITO, Ward -5, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeals and stay applications filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 371/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

Kaniyath Poothakandy Surendran, Kunnamangalam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3) Kozhikode, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 356/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kaniyath Poothakandy Surendran .......... Appellant Kp Cheriyakkan & Son, Hpc Dealers Main Road, Munnamangalam, Kozhikode [Pan: Aoxps5818K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kozhikode .......... Respondent

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

outset I find that there is a delay of 382 days in filing the appeal. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay by stating that the delay has occurred, as the appellant was exploring the alternative remedy of settling the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme ... appellant. Therefore, it is prayed that the delay may be condoned. 3. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR vehemently opposed to condonation of delay, as no sufficient cause was shown for the delay. 4. I have carefully gone through the averments made in the petition seeking condonation