“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

Amba Shanti Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1863/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subhash (CIT-DR)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

decision of the Tribunal as well as the Hon’ble High Courts where a liberal view has been taken in case of condoning the delay in filing application for ITA No. 1862 & 1863/Mum/2025 (A.Y. N.A.) Amba Shanti Foundation registration in form 10AB. We would place our reliance on the decision ... Delhi)[21-12-2012], where after considering various decisions had laid down the principles that are to be taken into consideration for condoning such delay. We hereby extract the relevant portion of the said order for ease of reference: “22. The following general principles were laid down

Amba Shanti Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1862/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subhash (CIT-DR)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

Lokumal Kishinchand Charity Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1267/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Lokumal Kishinchand Charity Trust Ito Exemption Ward-1(4), 629-A, Gazdar House, 3Rd Floor, Vs Mumbai J Shanker Seth Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai – 400002. [Pan No. Aaatl2570L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)Section 44A

valid and sufficient reasons. 2. It is submitted that the Appellant sought redressal of the issue by filing a petition for Condonation of Delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) in line with the CBDT Circular No. 16/2022. However, no further ... dismissed the appeal of the Appellant. The appeal was technically required to be filed on or before 15.12.2023. However, since the Petition for Condonation of Delay in Filing Form No. 10B was pending before the CIT(E), the Appellant did not initially file the appeal against the Appellate Order. Thus

Shweta Ajaykumar Paharia, Jaymala Apartment, Marve Road, Malad West, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 41(3)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex

ITA 1181/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. Ashutosh PatareFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

present appeal be condoned and in this regard reliance was placed upon the affidavit filed by the Assessee along with application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal which reads as under: “1. That I am the Appellant in the present appeal and am well conversant with the facts ... bona fide reasons beyond my knowledge and control. 10. That I respectfully submit that the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice.” It was submitted that the delay was caused on account of reasons explained in the affidavit

Mohammad Mohsin Qureshi, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4218/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Mohammad Mohsin Qureshi Ito Ward-42(2)(4) Room No. 375, Plot No. 2, Shashtri Vs Kautilya Bhavan, Maharashtra. Nagar, Near Bus Depot, Bandra West, Maharashtra-400050. [Pan No. Bexpk0365Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya Ca Revenue By Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 21.08.2024 Date Of Hearing 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.05.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee has already filed application for condonation of delay. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that on coming to know about dismissal of appeal of ld. CIT(A), the assessee furnished ... Singh vs CIT (2009) 308 ITR 71 (Patna). 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue on the issue of condonation of delay submits that assessee has not explained the delay. The approach of assessee is casual in explaining the delay. The delay may not be condoned

Neelam Jindal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-59(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5186/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraneelam Jindal Vs. Acit, Circle 59(1) C/O Sh. Ravi Gupta, Delhi B-41, Lgf, Lailash Colony, Delhi 110048 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaopj6430D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Neha Gupta, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.05.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 144

Neelam Jindal (AY: 2017-18) whatsoever was given by the assessee, no sufficient cause or cogent ground was assigned for condonation of delay by the assessee in support of late filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority and hence, the order was passed exparte treating the appeal as barred

ITO, Ward-1(1), Moradabad vs. M.M.Construction, Moradabad

In the result only ground pressed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2805/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68

appeal filed by assessee is time barred by 4 days. The learned AR during the course of hearing has made request for condonation of delay. In view of the application dated 07.05.2024 and the learned DR has not seriously disputed the delay aspect, the delay of 4 days in filing

M.M.Construction, Moradabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Moradabad

In the result only ground pressed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2030/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68

Bhopal Garh Co Operative Marketing Society Limited, Bhopalgarh vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Jodhpur

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 83/JODH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

assessment year 2020-21 where the appellant has challenged the decision of the Id. CIT(A) in dismissing it appeal by rejecting condonation of delay ignoring the genuine and Bonafide reasons and sustained the order of Id AO without examining the merits of the case. 2. At the outset ... record, we find that admittedly, there was a short delay of 78 days before the Ld. CIT(A) who ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits of the case. Though there was considerable delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal but taking into consideration

The Marula Coop M/P A/S Society Ltd, Vpo Marula vs. ITO Ward 4, Mall Road

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 659/ASR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 250Section 4

shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for I.T.A. Nos. 658 and 659/Asr/2024 3 Assessment Year: 2011-12 condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shall place

The Marula Coop M/P A/S Society Ltd, Vpo Marula vs. ITO Ward 4 Hoshiarpur, Income Tax Office, Mall Road

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 658/ASR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 250Section 4

Nazia Dar, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Katra

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

ITA 631/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 May 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Upender Bhat, C.A

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 69

appellant has not shown any sufficient cause. The reasons cited by the appellant are not found tenable and thus the prayer for condonation of delay file by the appellant is not admissible. The appeal is therefore dismissed in limine under the provision of Sec. 249(3) r.w.s

Rmcana India Foundation, Kakinada vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 197/VIZ/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 May 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.196 & 197/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25) Rmcana India Foundation Vs. Commissioner Of Income East Godavari Tax (Exemption) Pan:Aamcr3582K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri I Kama Sastry, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri I Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 12Section 12ASection 80G

assessee has submitted that due to the mis-communication between the assessee foundation and the Tax Consultant at Delhi, the application for condonation of delay could not be filed before the CIT (Exemption). He has now filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit to explain ... w.e.f. 1/10/2024, the Pr. CIT or the CIT ought to have considered the reasonable cause for delay in filing the application and condone such delay. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the impugned orders were passed by the CIT (Exemption) on 29/01/2025 much after the insertion of the said

Rmcana India Foundation, Kakinada vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 196/VIZ/2025[2024-25 ]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 May 2025

For Appellant: Shri I Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 12Section 12ASection 80G

Kothapalli Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Bapulapadu Mandal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudiwada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being barred by limitation

ITA 246/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.246/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kothapalli Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer Agricultural Cooperative Ward(1) Credit Society Limited Gudivada Krishna Distt Pan:Aacak1455G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C Subramanyam, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31/03/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 730 Days In Filing The Appeal Before This Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri C Subramanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

appeal before this Tribunal. 3. We have heard the learned AR as well as the learned DR on the issue of delay and condonation of delay. The assessee has not filed any petition/application for condonation of delay to Page 1 of 2 ITA 246 of 2024 Kothapally Agricultural Coop Credit

V P Rasheed, Ernakulam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 260/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 153A

record. 4. There is a delay of 160 days in all these appeals, for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating that the assessee was suffering from severe heart deceases and in support of the same, medical reports of the assessee for the relevant period ... reasonable cause for not filing the appeals in time, for which the assessee has also annexed medical records. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay in the present appeals and proceed to decide the appeals. 7. We take assessment year 2008-2009 in ITA No.254/Coch/2024 as the lead appeal for adjudication