“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

Roshan Lal, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhiwadi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 50/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek BasotiaFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 69A

appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an affidavit stating the reasons for delay and prayed to condone the delay, the content of the affidavit reads as under :- AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY 1, Roshan Lal, humbly submit this request for condonation of delay ... merit, and if the delay is condoned, it would enable me to pursue my rightful remedies and obtain justice. I respectfully submit that condoning the delay would not cause any prejudice to the revenue authorities. In light of the above, I kindly request the Hon'ble Tribunal to condone

Mohar Singh, Alwar vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Alwar

The appeal are hereby dismissed as having been withdrawn

ITA 746/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Choudhary, Adv. (through V.C.)For Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

filed after a delay of 191 days. That is how, the assessee filed an application order the signatures of him Ld. AR seeking condonation of delay, accompanied by his own affidavit. 3. On 30.04.2025 the matter was taken up for hearing. Ld. AR for the appellant-applicant made simple submission

S R Automobiles, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1269/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT a

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay with following prayers:- “I Rajesh Rawat, in the capacity of partner of M/s S.R. Automobiles, hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1. That ... delay in fact the assessee is at risk. 3.3. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR objected to assessee’s application for condonation of delay and prayed that Court may decide the issue as deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 3.4 We have heard both

Anwar Akbar Khatik, Dhule vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Dhule

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

ITA 2559/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2559/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Meshram

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

Departmental Representative. 3. Registry has informed that there is delay of 282 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating 2 Anwar Akbar Khatik that assessee is not well educated and reside in a remote village Khandubara ... conversant with the income-tax portal and e-mails. Therefore, a prayer is made to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4. Considering that the assessee is residing in rural area and not well versed with the new changes of online filing and notices being received through emails

Varvade Panchkroshi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Ratanagiri vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur

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

ITA 2349/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2349/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Varvade Panchkroshi Shikshan Vs. Acit, Circle-1 Prasarak Mandal, Kolhapur At Post Varawade, Waravade, Ratnagiri – 415620 Maharashtra Pan : Aaatv7973M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Darshit J. NaikFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 10Section 11Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

Registry has informed that there is delay of 332 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee explaining the reasons. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sitaldas K. Motwani ... view that there was ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. We therefore condone the delay of 332 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. In the various grounds of appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the exemption u/s.11

Rama Devi Tummala, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 778/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

that there is a delay of 449 days in filing of appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that, the assessee ... filing the appeal and the assessee has not gained any benefit from such delay. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench to condone the delay in filing of this appeal. 4. Per contra, the Learned Department Representative (“Ld. DR”) relying on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court

Valaka Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, West Bengal vs. ACIT, Circle - 20, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as indicated above

ITA 567/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2025AY 2012-13

Section 253

assessee to file a fresh appeal before the appropriate bench of the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the assessee along with petition for condonation of delay caused on this account. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as indicated above. Kolkata, the 5th May, 2025. [Sanjay Awasthi] [Sonjoy

DCIT, Circle-1, Burdwan vs. Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill Pvt Ltd, Burdwan

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2654/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2654/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Dcit, Circle-1, Burdwan Vs Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mills Private Limited, Konerpara Kalanabagram, Memari, West Bengal Pan No. :Aaecb 0141 J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/05/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 263

revenue is filed belatedly by 148 days. In this regard, the revenue has filed an application dated 26.12.2024 stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which in our opinion, are plausible. Accordingly, 2 the delay of 148 days in filing the appeal by the revenue is condoned and the appeal

Fo Kuang Shan Calcutta Buddhist Centre, Kolkata vs. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 2647/KOL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2647/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : Na) Fo Kuang Shan Calcutta Vs Cit(Exemption), Kolkata Buddhist Centre, 8 New Tangra Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Aaatf 1639 E (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustagi, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/05/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Rustagi, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)

assessee is filed belatedly by 33 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application along with affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which in our opinion, is a plausible one and the same is not found to be false. Accordingly, the delay of 33 days

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. Vital Enclave Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2407/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2025AY 2012-13

AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. The present appeal is related to be time barred by 123 days. The Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay dated 27.11.2024 through which it has been mentioned as to the administrative reasons leading to the delay. 1.1. We have carefully perused the petition ... presented before us and we deem it fit to condone the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 1.2 The present appeal emanates from the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred

M/S. Bengal Shristi Infrastructure Development Ltd., Durgapur vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 2, Durgapur

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

ITA 2035/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2035/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) M/S Bengal Shristi Infrastructure Vs Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur Development Limited, Bug-5, Upper Ground Floor, City Centre, Durgapur-713216 Pan No. :Aabcb 8990 N (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.04.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1052357794(1), For The Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Outset, On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Belatedly By 464 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Stating Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, Which In Our Opinion, Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Accordingly, The Delay Of 464 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Heard On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR

appeal of the assessee is filed belatedly by 464 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which in our opinion, are plausible and not found to be false. Accordingly, the delay of 464 days in filing the appeal

DCIT, Circle-1, Burdwan vs. Katwa-Kalna Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited, Burdwan

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 156/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.153-156/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 To 2017-18 & 2020-21) Dcit, Circle-1, Burdwan Vs Katwa-Kalna Cooperative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Limited, Udyog Bhaban, Kg Bose Sarani Katwa-713130 Pan No. :Aacak 8053 E & Cross Objections No.28, 29 & 31/Kol/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.153, 154 & 155/Kol/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 To 2017-18 & 2020-21) Dcit, Circle-1, Burdwan Vs Katwa-Kalna Cooperative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Limited, Udyog Bhaban, Kg Bose Sarani Katwa-713130 Pan No. :Aacak 8053 E (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Nicholas Murmu, Sr. Dr निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None (Adjournment Application Filed) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/05/2025

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application filed)For Respondent: Shri Nicholas Murmu, Sr. DR

Section 80P(2)(a)

four appeals of the revenue are delayed by 10 days each. In this regard, the revenue has filed necessary application for condonation of delay. We have perused the reasons submitted by the revenue for condonation of delay which are found to be plausible and as the delay is only

DCIT, Circle - 1, Burdwan vs. Katwa Kalna Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited, Burdwan

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 155/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application filed)For Respondent: Shri Nicholas Murmu, Sr. DR

Section 80P(2)(a)

DCIT, Circle-1, Burdwan vs. Katwa-Kalna Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited, Burdwan

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 154/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application filed)For Respondent: Shri Nicholas Murmu, Sr. DR

Section 80P(2)(a)

DCIT, Circle-1, Burdwan vs. Katwa-Kalna Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited, Burdwan

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 153/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application filed)For Respondent: Shri Nicholas Murmu, Sr. DR

Section 80P(2)(a)

Primary Plus Media Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 20(1), Cr Building Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 5715/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri R.S.Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

NFAC, Delhi dated 08.09.2024 for A.Y 2016-17. 2 Primary Plus Media [A.Y 2016-17] 2. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. There is a delay of 10 days. The reasons stated by the ld. counsel for the assessee seem to be reasonable. Accordingly, we condone ... that the assessment has been made ex parte by the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the application filed for condonation of delay. 4. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused

3 I Infotech Digital Bps Limited (Formerly Known As 3 I Infotech Bpo Limited), Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2621/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aman Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

appeal in the event assessee’s declaration made under VSVS is not accepted, the Registry shall not insist for filing of application for condonation of delay, if the Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order is filed beyond time on account of delay in communication of outcome under VSVS. [Revenue

Balasundaram Thirumavalavan, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward-5, Cuddalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 552/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 551 & 552/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Balasundaram Thirumavalavan, Ito, No.128, Senniantham South, Vs. Ward 5, Sethiathoppu, Coimbatore. Chidambaram Tk, Cuddalore – 608 702. [Pan: Aljpt-1706-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 69A

find that there is a delay of 148 days and 117 days respectively in appeals filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons for delay has been filed. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find

Balasundaram Thirumavalavan, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward-5, Cuddalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 551/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 69A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Mrf Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 55/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.R. Clement Ramesh

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35

appeal in ITA No.54/Chny/2025, is delayed by ‘9’ days, for which, the DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai, has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay, to which, the Ld.Counsel of the assessee has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, the delay of ‘9’ days in filing of the appeal