← All Phrases

“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

Sahifa Asif Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward 31(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1116/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha JainFor Respondent: Shri Gotimukul Santosh Kumar
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

challenging the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). 6. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee at the outset requested for condonation of delay of 409 days in filing the present appeal. It was explained that the Assessee was facing medical issues at the relevant time ... support reliance was placed upon the medical reports and the affidavit filed along with application seeking condonation of delay. It was further submitted that for the same reasons the Assessee was proceeded ex-parte by Assessment Year 2012-2013 the CIT(A) and therefore, Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee

M/S. Jagruti Computech Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 1(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 5751/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri H. S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)

Appeal for relief but the appeal has already become barred by time limitation and therefore accompanied by an application for condonation of delay as provided under section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963. 23. That in this way there is a delay of 6 mnts for which an application under ... timely manner. As due to this pandemic and Non receipt of order on my mail this delay has been caused and I seek condonation of delay in filling the Appeal.” 6. The primary reason for delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was that that the chartered accountant

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Me N Moms Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4900/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 145Section 68

noted delay of 2 days in filing the present appeal by the revenue before the Tribunal. In this respect, in the application for condonation of delay, ld. CIT DR submitted that last date to file the present appeal was on 21.09.2024. However, it was Saturday and the next

Sachendra Kumar Sharma, Village Khiriya Dewat Post Khiriya Dewat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ashok Nagar

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 95/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250(6)

12/10231443 related to ITA No. 103/Agr/2025 as ex-parte in default and remaining appeals were dismissed upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. 2. All the aforesaid appeals have been filed on the ground, in addition to other grounds, that ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing ... being seriously ill, he could not visit the office of his consultant. We treat these uncontroverted submissions as just and sufficient and condone the delay in filing all the above appeals before this Tribunal. 8. It transpires from the perusal of records that the assessee filed first appeal

Sachendra Kumar Sharma, Ashok Nagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ashok Nagar

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 106/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250(6)

12/10231443 related to ITA No. 103/Agr/2025 as ex-parte in default and remaining appeals were dismissed upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. 2. All the aforesaid appeals have been filed on the ground, in addition to other grounds, that ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing ... being seriously ill, he could not visit the office of his consultant. We treat these uncontroverted submissions as just and sufficient and condone the delay in filing all the above appeals before this Tribunal. 8. It transpires from the perusal of records that the assessee filed first appeal

Sachendra Kumar Sharma, Ashok Nagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ashok Nagar

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 105/AGR/2025[FSGPK3708E]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Apr 2025

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250(6)

12/10231443 related to ITA No. 103/Agr/2025 as ex-parte in default and remaining appeals were dismissed upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. 2. All the aforesaid appeals have been filed on the ground, in addition to other grounds, that ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing ... being seriously ill, he could not visit the office of his consultant. We treat these uncontroverted submissions as just and sufficient and condone the delay in filing all the above appeals before this Tribunal. 8. It transpires from the perusal of records that the assessee filed first appeal

Sachendra Kumar Sharma, Ashok Nagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ashok Nagar

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 104/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250(6)

12/10231443 related to ITA No. 103/Agr/2025 as ex-parte in default and remaining appeals were dismissed upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. 2. All the aforesaid appeals have been filed on the ground, in addition to other grounds, that ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing ... being seriously ill, he could not visit the office of his consultant. We treat these uncontroverted submissions as just and sufficient and condone the delay in filing all the above appeals before this Tribunal. 8. It transpires from the perusal of records that the assessee filed first appeal

Sachendra Kumar Sharma, Ashok Nagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ashok Nagar

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 103/AGR/2025[FSGPK3708E. KOIPK9828G]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Apr 2025

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250(6)

12/10231443 related to ITA No. 103/Agr/2025 as ex-parte in default and remaining appeals were dismissed upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. 2. All the aforesaid appeals have been filed on the ground, in addition to other grounds, that ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing ... being seriously ill, he could not visit the office of his consultant. We treat these uncontroverted submissions as just and sufficient and condone the delay in filing all the above appeals before this Tribunal. 8. It transpires from the perusal of records that the assessee filed first appeal

Muslim Fund, Jamshedpur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 378/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi04 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am (Through : Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.378/Ran/2024 (धनध ारण वषा / A.Y.S :2017-2018) Muslim Fund Vs. Ito (Exemption Ward), Jama Masjid, Sakchi, Jamshedpur Jamshedpur स्थ यी लेख सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaam 0411 A (अपील थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Choudhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates र जस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनव ई की त रीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2025 घोषण की त रीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 25/01/2024, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060142968(1) For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Filed Belatedly By 195 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Therein. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 195 Days In Filing The Appeal & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Heard Finally.

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Choudhary & Shri DeveshFor Respondent: Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 69A

that the appeal of the assessee has been filed belatedly by 195 days. In this regard, ld. AR has filed an application for condonation of delay stating sufficient reasons therein. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 195 days in filing the appeal and the appeal of the assessee is heard

Dinkar Kashimath Patil, Marcela vs. Income Tax Officer-W-1(3), Panaji

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

ITA 10/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.10/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19 ) Dinkar Kashimath Patil, Vs National Faceless H.No.322/3,Ganpatiwada, Assessment Centre, . Near Graceland,Khandola, Delhi. Marcela, Ponda-403107, . Goa. Pan/Gir No. Ajjpp9976E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144Section 194I

raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition of short term capital gains and not condoning the delay in filling the appeal before the CIT(A). 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that there is a delay ... filing the appeal before 2 ITA. No.10/PAN/2025 Dinkar Kashimath Patil. the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and sufficient cause was explained and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone

Vidya Sagar Singh HUF Through Karta Santosh Kumar Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (4), Patna

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

ITA 8/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 250Section 251Section 69A

informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 96 days. An application along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, the contents of which are as follows: “It is stated that the then karta of the HUF Vidya Sagar ... prevented from filing the instant appeals within statutory time limit for which the assessee submits that there is no delay. We, however, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I.T.A. No.: 8/PAT/2025 Assessment

Bluechip Asset Private Limited (Previously Known As Bluechip Advisory Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 622/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 208 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, the contents of which are as follows: “1. That the applicant is filed appeal before ITAT within the time ... being enclosed here with. 4. It is request to you that kindly allow the condonation of appeal.” 1.2. Considering the application seeking condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal

Lalbabu Prasad, Sitamarhi vs. DCIT, Cir-3, Darbhanga

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

ITA 438/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 10 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as follows: “1. That the above appeal against the order passed u/s 250 on 21/03/2024 is being filed today ... assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal

Sarika Choudhary, Patna vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Patna

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

ITA 254/PAT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

dated 29.03.2016. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal is delayed by 1500 days and the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay which is as under: “1. That the appellant was not aware in regard to order dated 05/03/2020 but when was going through the portal ... that in view of the circumstances cited in the affidavit the delay may be condoned. 1.3. We have gone through the application seeking condonation of delay as well as the affidavit filed which is also supported by the medical documents and find that there was sufficient cause for the delay

Subhash Kumar, Muzaffarpur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Muzaffarpur

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 220/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

Kumar. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 2 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee. However, the content of the application is as follows: “The above appeal has been preferred against the order ... submitted. Therefore, the delay of 2 days as mentioned in the notice may kindly be condoned and oblige.” 1.2. Considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant

Bharatheeya Kisan Sangh, Palakkad vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kochi

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

ITA 865/COCH/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Apr 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt.Rajalakshmy M, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 12A

assessee could not point out that there is a delay in filing the present appeal before us. Nor there is any application for condonation of delay has been filed before the ITAT. Therefore, the present appeal of the assessee is dismissed on account of delay. There appears to be gross ... negligence on the part of assessee who has not even bother to file an application for condonation of delay. The Ld AR has neither made any request seeking time for filing the condonation application nor has removed the defect of belated appeal as pointed out by the registry immediately after

Chakrabarti Eye Care Centre, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ACIT, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 852/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekhar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

assessee filed appeals before the first appellate authority. The appeals were filed before the first appellate authority belatedly. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed all the appeals. The CIT(A) held that the assessee did not have sufficient cause for not presenting ... learned A.R. reiterated that when levy of late fee itself is bad in law, a liberal approach ought to be taken while condoning the delay. In this context the learned A.R. relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition

Chakrabarti Eye Care Centre, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ACIT, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 851/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekhar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

assessee filed appeals before the first appellate authority. The appeals were filed before the first appellate authority belatedly. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed all the appeals. The CIT(A) held that the assessee did not have sufficient cause for not presenting ... learned A.R. reiterated that when levy of late fee itself is bad in law, a liberal approach ought to be taken while condoning the delay. In this context the learned A.R. relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition

Chakrabarti Eye Care Centre, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ACIT, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 850/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sreeram Sekhar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

assessee filed appeals before the first appellate authority. The appeals were filed before the first appellate authority belatedly. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed all the appeals. The CIT(A) held that the assessee did not have sufficient cause for not presenting ... learned A.R. reiterated that when levy of late fee itself is bad in law, a liberal approach ought to be taken while condoning the delay. In this context the learned A.R. relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition

Dugdh Utpadan Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Barwani vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Sendhwa

ITA 760/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore04 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 147Section 253

days in preferring this second appeal before this Tribunal from date of impugned order which is dated 25.4.2024. The assessee in the condonation of delay application filed before us has contended that they came to know of passing of the impugned order only in the month of September, 2024 when ... assessee has filed affidavit in Page 2 of 7 Dugdh Utpadan Sahakari Samiti Maryadit ITA No. 760/Ind/2024 – AY 2018-19 support of the condonation of delay. After hearing Ld. AR on delay and so also Ld. DR for Revenue who has not seriously contested the issue of delay we condone