“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

Lilawati Welfare Society, Ujjain vs. CIT Exemption, Bhopal

ITA 241/IND/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 12ASection 80G(5)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Lilawati Welfare Society, Ujjain vs. CIT (Exemption), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1014/IND/2025[NIL]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 12ASection 80G(5)

filed second appeal relating to approval u/s 80G(5) after a delay. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has filed an application/affidavit for condonation of delay explaining these facts and accordingly prays for condonation of delay. These facts were deliberated during hearing and on a careful consideration, we are satisfied ... wherein it has been held that the “technical considerations” should not prevail over the cause of “substantial justice”, we deem it fit to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing second appeal being ITA No. 1014/Ind/2025 is condoned and the appeal is taken for hearing. 3. Ld. AR next

Vijay Kothari, Indore vs. DCIT (Central)-1, Indore

ITA 267/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 250

after a delay of 382 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application/affidavit for condonation of delay; the affidavit filed by assessee is scanned and re-produced: Page 2 of 25 Vijay Kothari ITA No.267/Ind/2024 ... Paavo Root ax ain, NOTE NaNe NOM a8 ae poy Snir? eg Xo FIDAVIT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at INDORE oo a “4 ra the matter of Shri Vijay Kothari (ACVPK1947R) Aksessment Year

Tirupathi Arsam, Mancherial vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mancherial

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

ITA 1531/HYD/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1531/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Tirupathi Arsam Vs. Income Tax Officer Mancherial Ward-1 Pan:Agypa4706B Mancherial (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Suresh A, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Suresh A, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 69A

from the record that the present appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 11 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit filed along with ... suggest that the delay was deliberate or due to any mala fide intention. It is well settled that while considering an application for condonation of delay, a liberal approach should be adopted in order to advance substantial justice, particularly when the delay is not excessive. In the present case

Mahesh Prakash Bende, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 27(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8028/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmahesh Prakash Ito Circle - 27(2), Bende 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, 302, 3Rd Floor, Prithvi Vs. It Office, Vashi Park, Sector-30, Vashi Railway Station Navi Mumbai-400 075 Building, Navi Mubmai – 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Alnpb2531M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250

Thus, there was a delay of 127 days in filing the appeal. The learned CIT(A) first proceeded to examine the issue of condonation of delay under section 249(3) of the Act. The assessee explained the delay in filing the appeal by stating, inter alia, that:  The assessee ... prayed for. 5. The learned CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and the statutory provisions of section 249, declined to condone the delay. The CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to establish “sufficient cause” for delay within the meaning of section 249(3) and the reasons

Tirath Singh Prithpal Singh, Bastar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Kanker, Kanker

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

ITA 184/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.184/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Tirath Singh Prithpal Singh Raipur Road, Kondagaon, Bastar-494 226 Pan: Aabft4954F

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 249(3)Section 250(4)

assessee submitted that if one final opportunity is provided to the assessee, they will furnish all the relevant documents/evidences explaining the condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. 6. The Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection as regards the contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel ... justice, we allow one final opportunity to the assessee to present relevant evidence/documents before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC explaining the reasons for condonation of delay and after going through those evidences, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall specifically decide whether such delay can be condoned as per Section

Suresh Madamanchi, Warangal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 1405/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

that there is a delay of 577 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee had filed Form No.35 ... condoned so that the matter can be adjudicated on merits. 4. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR’) opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that there is an inordinate delay of 577 days in filing the appeal and the assessee has not shown sufficient cause for such delay

Indis Central Park Properities Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1180/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

that there is a delay of 80 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the Chief Financial Officer ... admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay. Page 2 of 6 INDIS Central Park Properties Private Limited VS. DCIT 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available

Somasekar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 7(3), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4136/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.4135 & 4136/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Somasekar, The Income Tax Officer, No.3, Ambedkar Nagar, Vs. Non-Corp Ward-7(3), Old Thirumangalam, Chennai. Anna Nagar West Chennai – 600 040. [Pan: Bxdps-8182-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. R. S. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Aroon Praasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2026

For Appellant: Mr. R. S. Lakshmi Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Aroon Praasad, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 69A

passed orders by considering the information available with the department and the same have been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC without condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the due dates. Since the assessee has failed to participate before the Assessing Officer and also filed the appeal before ... case and to meet the ends of justice, we deem it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the before ld.CIT(A) as the assessee had filed the condonation of delay in his form 35 itself and hence, we set aside

Somasekar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp Ward 7(3), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4135/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. R. S. Lakshmi Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Aroon Praasad, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 69A

Karma Ecotech Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Cirle 13(1), New Dlhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7431/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80I

erred under the law while disposing off appeal filed by the appellant with the observation that, jurisdiction for condonation of delay in filing form 10CCB lies with CIT(A) exemption u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. 3. That the CIT(A)-NFAC is erred under the law and fact ... while not condoning the delay of only 18 days in filing the Form 10CCB as the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in not filing the Form on or before time. 4. That all the grounds of appeal raise herein above are independent ground and without prejudice to each others

Tathagat, New Delhi vs. AO Centralized Processing Center, Income Tax Depatment Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7273/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)

under:- “1. A perusal of the section itself shows that the first appellate authority has been specifically excluded from the power to condone any delay u/s 119(2)(b). 2. Further, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Ahmedabad) in the case of Association of Indian Panel board Manufacturer ... held as under: Section 119 of the Income-tax Act. 1961- Central Board of Direct Taxes instructions to subordinate authorities (Condonation of delay in filing Form No. 108)- Assessment year 2018-19- Assessee, a charitable institution registered under section 12AA. claimed exemption under section 11-on filing original return

Tathagat, New Delhi vs. AO Centralized Processing Center, Income Tax Depatment Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7272/DEL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)

Tathagat, New Delhi vs. AO Central Processing Center, Income Tax Department

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7271/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)

Amrik Singh Through Legal Heir Kawalpreet Kaur, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Ghaziabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1366/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalamrik Singh Through Legal Heir Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Kawalpreet Kaur, 1(5), Ghaziabad, 206, Ground Floor, Niti Khand-1, Uttar Pradesh Indirapuram, Ghaziabad Pan: Achps0677E Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Legal Heir Of The Assessee Challenging The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Ghaziabad (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 31/08/2018 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. None Appeared For The Appellant. Considering The Issue Involved In The Present Appeal We Deem It Fit To Decide The Appeal On Hearing The Ld. Department'S Representative & Perused The Material Available On Record.

Section 143(3)

material available on record. 3. There is a delay of 614 days in filing the present Appeal. The appellant filed an application for condonation of delay contending that Assessee Sh. Amrik Singh died on 28/01/2018, the legal heirs of the 2 Amrik Singh Vs. ITO Assessee could not make ... Appeal pending before the CIT(A), therefore, the Appeal could not be filed on time before the Tribunal. Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus

Late Vishwas Gajmal Sonawane, Dhule vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dhule

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

ITA 194/PUN/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.194/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Late Vishwas Gajmal Sonawane, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through Legal Heir Milind Ward-1, Dhule Vishwas Gajmal, Plot No.40, Vishwasindhu Sneh Nagar, Station Road, Opp. Khandal Vipra Bhavan, Dhule – 424 001, Maharashtra Pan : Ablps6973N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar

Section 139Section 143Section 148Section 154Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

prevented by the good and sufficient cause in delayed filing of appeal and therefore delay in filing appeal is not condoned and without condoning the delay the appeal cannot be admitted. Once the delay in filing condonation is rejected, deciding the appeal on merits doesn’t arise. 5. In view ... submission of appeal upto 15.10.2024. Considering the above facts, the ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the appeal and relied on various decisions condoning the delay including that of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250. On merits

Sevabhavi Bramnan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ravtale Chiplu, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 2784/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2784/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sevabhavi Bramnan Nagari Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ward-1, Ratnagiri Ravtale Chiplu, Burumtali Chiplun, Ratnagiri – 415605, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra Pan : Aadas7630J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(2)(c)Section 249(3)Section 69A

case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 267 days before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative society registered under the Maharasthra State Cooperative ... Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) on 25.09.2023, however ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay by holding as under : 3 Sevabhavi Bramnan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ravtale Chiplu “13. In light of the aforesaid principles, I am of the considered view

Sasireka Boopathi, Thanjavur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thanjavur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands Partly

ITA 4113/CHNY/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4113/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sasireka Boopathi, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1/263, Vellalar Street, Thanjavur. Saliyamangalam, Papanasam, Thanjavur – 613504 Pan: Gpfpb2689J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Gokularaman – Ca Revenue By Ms. V Aswathy – Jcit Date Of Hearing 18/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2019-20 Dated 19.09.2025. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

delay of 30 days in presenting the appeal before this Tribunal. The appellant had ITA No.4113/CHNY/2025 [A] filed an Affidavit seeking for the condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of as he was suffering from the illness of ‘Bonchial Asthma’ and in support

Ansari Pakkidakala, Belthangady vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

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

ITA 146/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249Section 264Section 44ASection 69A

ground that the appeal was filed with a delay of 935 days and the assessee failed to furnish sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 8.2 Before us, the learned AR submitted that though the assessment order was passed earlier, the same was served on the assessee on 04.03.2020 and therefore ... examined on merits. Accordingly, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we condone the delay occurred before the Id. CIT-A and set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restore the entire matter to the file

Shri Basaveshwar Souharda Sahakari Sangha Niyamit, Kalloli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

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

ITA 485/PAN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

No.485/PAN/2025 Shri Basaveshwar Souharda Sahakari Sangha Niyamit . appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the application and affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, condone the delay and admit