“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

Shri Hardayal Gaushala, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 364/JPR/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. R. S. Poonia, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 12ASection 17Section 282Section 80G

time barred by 311 days. In response to this delay deficiency pointed out by the registry, the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith a duly notarized affidavit. We have gone through the same and found the same to be in order. In these terms the delay

Shri Hardayal Gaushala, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 363/JPR/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. R. S. Poonia, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR

Section 12ASection 17Section 282Section 80G

Pappu Jaiswal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

that there is delay of 423 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: “Re – Condo-nation of delay in filing of an appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench, Jaipur In the case ... humbly requested to consider the fact sympathetically and to take mercy upon the assessee and admit the appeal of the assessee by condoning the delay. The following case laws are quoted in support: - (i) Vijay Vishan Meghani vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) (2017) 398 ITR 250 Appeal-Condonation of Delay

Vinod Kumar Chugh, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 274

days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: “Most Respectfully Showeth: 1. That the appellant is a senior citizen and a retired employee of the Indian Railways, earning mainly from pension ... Supreme Court and various High Courts have 4 Vinod Kumar Chugh vs. ITO held that liberal interpretation should be applied while condoning the delay in genuine cases. 9. That the appellant has a strong prima facie case on merits and is likely to succeed in appeal. If the delay

Sitaram Chaudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-4(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 161/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT, Ld. DR

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

observed that the appeal before us is time barred by 402 days and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith an duly notarized affidavit for bench’s consideration. Hence, before moving ahead, the issue of condonation of delay is to be decided for further adjudication ... confirmed the e-mail id of consultant for receiving the communication, how he can claim the same as reason for delay in condonation of delay application. We have further observed the Form No. 36 filed by the assessee before us and found that again he has given his consultant

Sitaram Chaudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward - 4(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 160/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT, Ld. DR

Section 131Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

Rajasthan State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT-Cercle 6, Jaipur

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

ITA 234/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Rohan Chatter, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

time barred by 109 days and duly communicated to the assessee. In response to this the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit. We have gone through the same and found the same to be order especially being a State Govt. Public Undertaking, a lenient

Rajasthan State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 233/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Rohan Chatter, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Rajashthan State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 232/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Rohan Chatter, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Moti Ram Bairwa, Bassi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 1504/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Deevan Agarwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 139(4)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

that the appeal of the assessee is time barred by 351 days. In response to the same the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith a duly notarized affidavit for the same. We have gone through the contents of the same and find the same to be genuine ... with a reasonable cause is also there making the same fit for condonation of delay. In view of this, the delay in filing of the appeal is duly condoned. 4. It is observed that there is no finding by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) on merits

Daryabad Co-Operative Cane Development Union Limited, Barabanki vs. The Addl./Joint/Deputy/ACIT, NFAC

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

ITA 196/LKW/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2014-15 Daryabad Co-Operative Cane V. The Addl/Joint/Dy. Acit Development Union Limited Nfac Daryabad, Ram Sanehi Ghat Delhi Barabanki Tan/Pan:Aaaad4943N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 04 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

appeal: (1) That the Ld. C. I. T. (A) erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 159 days in filing of Appeal and in doing so fail to consider that the Assessee has reasonably explained the cause for delay ... days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 25.02.2025 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit of the Secretary of the assessee-society, stating therein that the wife of the local Counsel of the assessee was admitted

Collective Efforts for Voluntary Action, Chamba vs. CIT(Appeal), Income Tax Department

In the result, the appeal of the assessee I

ITA 879/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble Vice- & Sh. Krinwant Sahay, Hon’Ble(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.879/Chandi/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 12ASection 154Section 250

Income Tax Act 1961. 4. That the ld. CIT Appeal has not considered our grounds of appeal and not given the benefit of condonation of delay. 5. That any other grounds of appeal may be taken or amend at the time of hearing.” 3. At the very outset the counsel ... Facts gathered from the ld. CIT(A) order as well as. The relevant para of the ld. CIT(A) are as under: “2. Condonation of Delay: There has been a delay of 1161 days in filing of this appeal by the assessee in as much as the rectification order

Chattar Singh, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Mohali

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 459/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A. and Smt. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 249(2)(b)Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

considered view that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from responding to the deficiency notices and from seeking condonation of delay or exemption under the proviso to section 249(4). The failure to address communications to the correct address, as mandated under the faceless scheme, vitiates the foundation

Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Satara, Income Tax Office Satara vs. Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, Dahiwadi Man

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

ITA 1562/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.1562/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer, V Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, Ward-3, Satara S Shri Agencies Dahiwadi, Dahiwadi, Man Satara. Maharashtra – 415508. Pan: Aatpk8947P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, V The Income Tax Officer, Shri Agencies Dahiwadi, S Ward-3, Satara. Dahiwadi, Man Satara. Maharashtra – 415508. Pan:Aatpk8947P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Ar Shri Vidya Ratna Kishor – (Dr)(Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) (Nfac) Under Section 250 Of

Section 132Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 250

notice u/s 148 are quashed. 3.11 Accordingly, the legal ground raised by the assessee in C.O.No.11/PUN/2024 is allowed in above terms. Condonation of Delay : 4. There was a delay of 44 days in filling the CO by the assessee. The assessee is a senior citizen staying in a village.The ... Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the elaborate reasons. We are convinced that there was sufficient reason hence we condone the delay. 5. In the result, Cross Objection appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. ITA No.1562/PUN/2024 [R] & C.O.No.11/PUN/2025 [A] ITA No.1562/PUN/2024 (Revenue) : 6. Since we have already quashed

Krishna Filling Station, Karimnagar vs. ITO., Ward-2, Karimnagar

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

ITA 52/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(2)Section 250

notices u/sec.250 of the Act dated 18.01.2024, 05.02.2024, 14.02.2024, 01.03.2024 and 10.12.2024, but, the assessee has not filed any request or reason for condonation of delay. In view of non- submission of any explanation for the delay in filing appeal, the learned CIT(A) noted that ... Tribunal. 5. Shri T. Chaitanya, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that, although, the assessee did not file a petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A), the learned CIT(A) ought to have check that notices issued by him duly served upon

Ramakrishna Teletronics Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-3(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 988/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: MS. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 250Section 69A

very outset, there is a delay of 134 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay contending inter alia, 2 ITA.No.988/Hyd./2024 that, the assessee could not file the appeal in time because he has not received the certified ... condoned in the interest of justice. 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay of 134 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. We find that, there is a reasonable cause and sufficient cause in not filing

DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hydeabad vs. Avra Laboratories Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1300/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

delay of 17 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, to which, the Revenue has filed an affidavit seeking for condonation of delay of 17 ITA.No.1300/Hyd./2024 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal contending inter alia, that the delay has been occurred due to work pressure ... administrative reasons. We, therefore, satisfied with the reasons explained by the Revenue for condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and thus, condoned the delay and proceed for adjudication of the appeal. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in the instant appeal

Srk Constructions and Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

ITA 359/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Assessee submitted that, there is a delay of 445 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which, a petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining reasons for delay has been filed. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, referring to the petition filed by the assessee submitted that ... Shri LV Bhaskara Reddy, on the other hand. submitted that, there is no merit in the petition filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 445 days which is evident from the reasons provided therein and if we go by the reasons, there is no ‘sufficient and reasonable cause

Srk Constructions and Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 389/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Srk Construction Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

ITA 1415/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263