“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

Sanjivani Shikshan Sansthan, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1207/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahoan Sogani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR &

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

delay of 23 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed application for condonation of delay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit :- “I, RAM PRASAD JAT, hereby confirm that I was in receipt ... office premises, inadvertently overlooked the matter, resulting in the appeal not being filed within the stipulated time. Consequently, the presentapplication for condonation of delay is being submitted to rectify this oversight, which is supported by my affidavit. 4. That subsequently, I filed the appeal before the Hon'ble bench, resulting

Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Limited, Lucknow vs. D.C.I.T. Range-6 (Jao), Lucknow

In the result, ita No.164/LKW/2022 stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 174/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Namita S Pandey, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 199

before the Tribunal. The Ld. A.R. invited our attention to the application dated 27.07.2023 of the Managing Director of the assessee-company, for condonation of delay, supported by an Affidavit, stating therein that the impugned order of the NFAC was mailed on the e-filing portal that, however, the concerned ... view of the prayer made by the Ld. A.R. supported by an Affidavit and no objection by the Ld. CIT(D.R.), we condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 8. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. A.R., pressing on Ground

Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Limited, Lucknow vs. The DCIT, Range-6, Lucknow

In the result, ita No.164/LKW/2022 stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 164/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Namita S Pandey, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 199

Amarjeet Kaur W/O Sh. Balkar Singh, Kurukshetra vs. ITO, Ward -1, Kurukshetra

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 475/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Peyush Purthi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Registry has pointed out that present appeal is time barred by 123 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. It emerges out from A.Y.2012-13 2 the record that appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) for want of prosecution. Neither its notice ... When her bank accounts were attached, only then she came to know about the dismissal of her appeal. 3. Considering this application for condonation of delay, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 4. The Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.53

ACIT-CC-1, Chandigarh vs. M/S Bajwa Developers Ltd., Kharar

ITA 344/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

For Appellant: Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 154Section 271Section 271ASection 274

common order:- The appeals of the department bearing ITA No. 343/Chd/2020 and 344/Chd/2020 are late and for which, a request for condonation of delay has been filed by the department contending that due to transfer of jurisdiction of the assessee from time to time, the order

ACIT, CC-1, Chandigarh vs. M/S Bajwa Developers Ltd., Kharar

ITA 343/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

For Appellant: Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 154Section 271Section 271ASection 274

M/S Bajwa Developers Ltd., Kharar vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

ITA 1529/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

For Appellant: Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 154Section 271Section 271ASection 274

Swabhimani Brahm Sangathan, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 42/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Apr 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.42/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : -Na- Swabhimani Brahm The Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ Sangathan Ahmedabad – 380 015 V/S. 307, Chitrarath Complex Gujarat University Sohotel Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aavts 8521 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Adjournment Application Filed सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Adjournment Application filed

Section 12A

days (410 days as stated by the assessee in its application) in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay accompanied by an Affidavit sworn by Shri Kamlesh Jani, Trustee of the assessee trust. It is explained that the delay occurred as the notices

Satyaniketan, Ahmednagar vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 461/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Atmaram Vaze

Section 4Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)

There is a delay of 62 days in filing of the present appeal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. We are satisfied with the 2 explanation of the assessee that he was prevented by reasonable cause for not filing ... condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The assessee prays to condone the delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal for the reasons beyond its control. The assessee begs to submit an affidavit at the time

Adesh Tulshiram Mhatre, District Raigad vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 2385/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar GundherFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 206CSection 234ASection 270ASection 69Section 69C

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the reason for condonation of delay and denied natural justice. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte order ... case and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should have condoned the delay and decided the issue on merit. Since it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the addition in question is, in fact

M/S. Elcon Estate Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 13(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2277/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(b)Section 246Section 250

Further, it is noted that Section 119 empowers the Board to issue orders and guidelines regarding the condonation of delay in compliance with any provision of the Act. Section 119(2) reads as follows: Section 119(2) I.T.A. No.2277/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/s Elcon Estate ... INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AND RULE 21AE OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES. 1962- CERTAIN DOMESTIC COMPANIES - TAX ON INCOME OF CONDONATION OF DELAY UNDER SECTION 119(2)(b) IN FILING OF FORM 10-IC FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-22 CIRCULAR NO. /2022 [F. NO. 173/32/2022/ITA-1], DATED 23.10.2023 Section 115BAA

Deohara Co-Operative Cane Development Union Limited, Bijnor vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Bijnor

In the result, appeals of the assessee in Appeal Nos

ITA 2852/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2851/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2018-19) The Income Tax Seohara Co-Operative Cane Officer, Development Union Vs. Ward-3(1), Limited, 34-Station Road, Nazibabad-1, Up Seohara, Bijnor-246746. Pan-Aabas4970K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gurneet, Adv. Department By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Three Separate Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) & All Are Dated 23.3.2024 For Ay 2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Seohara Co-Operative Cane Development Union India Vs. Ito 2. As All The Three Appeals Are Related To One Assessment Year Against Three Seperate Orders Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 144B & Consequential Penalty Order U/S 270A & 271B Of The Act, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Filed By The Assessee On Account Of Delay In Filing The Respective Appeals. Since The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Relating To Dismissal Of Appeals Without Condoning The Delay In Filing, Thus All The Three Appeals Are Taken Together & Disposed Off By A Single Order.

Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 271BSection 44A

assessee on account of delay in filing the respective appeals. Since the grounds raised by the assessee relating to dismissal of appeals without condoning the delay in filing, thus all the three appeals are taken together and disposed off by a single order. 3. Brief facts are that appellant ... These appeals were also filed delayed by 64 days and the same were also dismissed in limine by ld. CIT(A) by not condoning the delay in filing the appeals. In all the three appeals, assessee had not filed any application requesting for condonation of delay before

Seohara Co-Operative Cane Development Union Limited, Bijnor vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Bijnor

In the result, appeals of the assessee in Appeal Nos

ITA 2851/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 271BSection 44A

Seohara Co-Operative Cane Development Union Limited, Bijnor vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Bijnor

In the result, appeals of the assessee in Appeal Nos

ITA 2850/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 271BSection 44A

Abdul Hakeem, Gulbarga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Gulbarga

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

ITA 31/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Gokul H.R., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 250Section 253(5)

days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention on application for condonation of delay dated 3.1.2025 along with an affidavit in original sworn before the notary public which are reproduced below for ease of reference and record: Abdul Hakeem, Gulbarga ... that the delay is unintentional and no benefit can be attributed to the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly. He thus prayed to condone the delay and requested to consider the issues raised by the assessee on merits. 5. On the contrary the ld. D.R. vehemently objected for granting

Ashish Kamalakar Vaidya, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 299/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarashish Kamalakar Vaidya Vs. Ito – 22(1)(2) C/Of C-304, Eastern Court, Room No. 308, Pirmal Junction Of Tejpal & Chamber, Lal Baug, Parleshwar Road, Vile Parle Parel, Mumbai. East, Mumbai – 400057. Pan/Gir No. Ahopv0333J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 154Section 250Section 48

filing the present appeal by the assessee . In this regard Ld. AR has filed an application for seeking 2 Ashish Kamalakar Vaidya, Mumbai condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the basis of reasons mentioned in the application. 3. On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained ... application and requested for dismissal of the same. 4. After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation of delay and considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court

Palghar Memon Walfare Trust, Palghar vs. CIT (Exemptions), Pune

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1532/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shi Omkareshwar Chidarapalghar Memon Welfare Trust Vs Cit (Exemptions), Pune Danani Baungalow, Kacheri Road, Palghar-401 404 Pan : Aadtp2242G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR

delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal. In this regard, the Ld.AR has drawn our attention to the application for seeking condonation of delay wherein he has categorically mentioned that although there were 60 days to file appeal against the impugned appeal order, but the petitioner failed ... this regard assessee has also 2 1532/Mum/2024 Palghar Memon Welfare Trust filed a detailed affidavit in support of the application for seeking condonation of delay. 2. On the other hand, the Ld.DR contested the said application and submitted that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay

Infiniti Retail Limited, Mumbai vs. Th Assistant Commissioner of Income- Tax Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6336/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)

delay of 427 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR prayed that, based on the application dated 02/12/2024 seeking condonation of delay supported by affidavit of the managing director of the assessee, the delay may be condoned in the interest of justice. 3.2 On the contrary ... Ld.DR vehemently opposed the application seeking condonation of delay filed by the assessee. He submitted that, assessee did not appear before the Ld.CIT(A), even though the notices were issued to the registered e-mail ID of the assessee. He thus supported the order passed by the authorities below

Indigo Metalloys Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed with cost of Rs

ITA 4955/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraindigo Metalloys Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit – 5(1)(1) Office No. 2,3,4 & 5 Shivneri Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Bldg, Mughbhat Lane, Road, Mumbai – 400 Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 004 020. Pan/Gir No. Aabci8026L (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 250

facts and circumstances as 3 Indigo Metalloys Pvt Ltd, Mumbai discussed by us above we dismiss the application filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay and also dismiss the present appeal on merits as nothing has been placed before us to controvert or rebut the findings recorded

Mr. Charat Singh, Nawanshahar vs. Income Tax Officer, Nawanshahr

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 577/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.577/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 282Section 69A

order of the ITO-Ward, Nawanshahar, dated 18/11/2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act 61. I.T.A. No.577/Asr/2024 2 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Condonation of delay: 2. It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is belated by 56 days. The assessee has filed an application praying ... condonation of delay on the ground that the order of the Ld. CIT ( A ) dated 26/06/2024, was served through email, on the authorised CA, but since the CA was fully engaged in the return filing and audit work in the months of July and August, the appeal could