“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

Raja Bhat and Kumuda Foundation, Belagavi vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 270/PAN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2022-23 Raja Bhat & Kumuda Foundation Plot No. 4, Rs No1368, Kumudini, Sadashiv Nagar, Belgavi-590001 Pan:Aajcr6351B . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 246A(1)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 8

proved to the satisfaction that for sufficient reasons the appellant could not file the same within the prescribed time. Insofar as the condonation of delay is concerned, we note that, admittedly this is first year of appellant’s operation/existence, hence the appellant’s bonafide belief that filing of audit report ... larger interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay. [‘Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Katiji’[AIR 1987 SC 1353]. In view of the former judicial precedents (supra), the bonafide belief of the appellant in our view

Hermon Educational Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 347/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 10Section 68

there is a delay of 45 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, for which, the assessee has filed affidavit seeking for condonation of delay duly explaining the medical reasons along with relevant medical certificate. We are satisfied with the explanation of the assessee seeking for condonation of delay ... days in filing the instant appeal before the Tribunal. We, therefore, condone the delay of 45 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case, are that, the assessee society viz., Hermon Educational Society, Visakhapatnam is running a school

Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Marya Khedi Sawligad, Khedisawligarh (Betul) vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department (Faceless Unit)

ITA 654/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 194CSection 194HSection 250Section 253Section 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI

Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Marya Khedi Sawligad, Khedisawligarh (Betul) vs. Assessment Unit, Faceless

ITA 653/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 194CSection 194HSection 250Section 253Section 80P

Kendriya Vidyalaya Barwani M P, Barwani vs. DCIT CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 647/IND/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Mar 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 154Section 154rSection 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 246ASection 250Section 253

incorrectly observed that Form no.35 is not filed properly, these are no statement of facts, no grounds of appeal, no application for condonation of delay, no particulars of appeal fee, no order against which appeal is preferred is enclosed hence since these defects are not rectified by the assessee despite

Hanumantrao Choudhari Kalbhairavnath Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2780/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2780/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanumantrao Choudhari Vs. Income Tax Department, Kalbhairavnath Nagri National E-Assessment Sahakari Patsanstha Centre, Delhi. Maryadit, Kunjirwadi, Near Naigaon Phata, Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune- 412110. Pan : Aaaah2316R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 12.10.2023 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2018-19 Framed On 05.04.2021 By The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. 2 2. There is a delay of 163 days in filing of the instant appeal. Application along with affidavit for condonation of delay has been filed. Perusal of the same indicates that the notice sent by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was on the e-mail ... case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Kattji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and also in the larger interest of justice condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Though the assessee has raised six grounds of appeal but the grievance only reveals around two issues. Firstly, denial

Navchaitanya Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Limited Atti, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Satara

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

ITA 2225/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ld. CIT(A) and to restore the issue raised on merits for necessary adjudication by Ld. CIT(A). Though Ld. DR oppose his request, we considering the facts of the case and also the contents of the application for condonation of delay filed before Ld. CIT(A), decide to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 143(1)(a)Section 80P

Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 30.09.2024 pertaining to assessment year 2021-22. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and to restore the issue raised on merits for necessary adjudication ... Though Ld. DR oppose his request, we considering the 2 facts of the case and also the contents of the application for condonation of delay filed before Ld. CIT(A), decide to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 3. So far as merits

Bhanuchander Goud Putta, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 84/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

same, in all fairness be condoned. 9. Per contra, the Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (“DR”, for short) objected to the seeking of condonation of delay by the assessee. It was submitted by him that as not only the delay involved in filing of the present appeal was inordinate, but also ... Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering

Jagadesshwar Rao Chidara, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle- 2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 83/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Us:

Section 144Section 147Section 148

same in all fairness be condoned. 9. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (in short “Ld. Ld. DR”) objected to seeking of condonation of delay by the assessee. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. DR submitted that as not only the delay involved in filing of the present appeal ... defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause

Arya Vysya Trust, Vikarabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Vikarabad

ITA 215/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:

Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 144

that there was a bona fide reason for the delay in filing the first appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the first appeal and deposed of the same on merits. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the issue ... trust have also been temporarily put on hold since covid. Therefore, the appellant would like to request your goodself to kindly condone the delay of 665 days and admit the appeal as the demand raised has caused undue hardship on the appellant particularly when the appellant is functioning

M/S. Adinath Electronics, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncw-7(3), Chennai

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

ITA 328/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.: 327 & 328/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 M/S. Adinath Electronics, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income No. 834, Raheja Complex, Vs. Tax, Shop No. 17, Anna Salai, Non-Corporate Ward-7(3), Mount Road, Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaffa-9420-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Anand Babunath, Ca (By Virtual) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Two Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Both Dated 31.10.2023, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 397 Days In Filing Both The Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reason Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That The Assessee Firm

For Appellant: Shri Anand Babunath, CA (by virtual)For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 250

There is a delay of 397 days in filing both the appeals. The assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of these appeals. The reason stated in the condonation application for belated filing of these appeals is that the assessee firm ... view that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of these appeals and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing both the appeals and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits. 4. At the very outset, we notice that

M/S. Adinath Electronics, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncw-7(3), Chennai

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

ITA 327/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Anand Babunath, CA (by virtual)For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 250

The Anamaimalai Block Primary Schools Teachers Co-Op Thr, Anaimalai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Chennai

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

ITA 3273/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3273/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Anamaimalai Block Primary The Commissioner Of Income Schools Teaches Co-Op. Thr, Vs. Tax, Anaimalai, Che-W-(63)(95), Coimbatore – 642 104. Chennai. [Pan: Aajft 0024G]

For Appellant: None

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)

audit requirements under Section 80 of the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Society Act, 1983, and the assessee has made an application for condonation of delay before the CCIT, which is pending. The Ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for claim of deduction ... reason that assessee has not filled return within the prescribed due date, though the condonation petition to condone the delay in filling return was pending with the CCIT. In our considered opinion, we deem it fit to remit the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after

M/S. Indo National Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Cricle -2(2). Chennai, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1405/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 35

time. Hence, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee cause from filing it on time. Hence, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay, for which, the Ld.DR objects; prayed for condonation of delay, for which, the Ld.DR objects; prayed for condonation of delay, for which, the Ld.DR ... reason taking note of the reasons for delay, we find it adequate to excuse ind it adequate to excuse the delay. Hence, we condone the delay of ‘93’ days and proceed to the delay. Hence, we condone the delay of ‘93’ days and proceed to the delay. Hence, we condone

M/S. Indo National Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Coprate Cricle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1404/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 35

P Three Construction Co., Nakhatrana vs. ITO, Ward-2, Bhuj

ITA 954/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.954/Rjt/2024

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

being into the notices, that the appeal filed delay for 370 days by the assessee. Therefore, the assessee filed an application for condonation for delay and affidavit, which is mentioned below: “1) I am working as accountant consultant of P Three Construction Co. (Firm) 2)The assessment in the case ... noted that there is sufficient cause for not complying the notice of hearing issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we condoned the delay and heard the appeal on merit. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, a partnership firm, is assessed to tax by the income

Shree Karmal Kotada Juth Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Office Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 328/RJT/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Mar 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.328/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Karmal Kotadajuth Seva Vs. The Ito Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot. Sahakarimandali Limited. Karmal Kotada, Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271B

been filed by the assessee belatedly. The learned Counsel adverted our attention to the affidavit filed in this regard citing reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 102 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel ... condoned in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, Learned DR for the revenue, opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay and stated that, assessee has failed to explain the sufficient cause. The learned DR further stated that delay should not be condoned and appeal

Praveen Gupta, Bhopal vs. AO, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 652/IND/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

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

Section 143(3)

service of assessment-order" and still the CIT(A) would not be satisfied, the assessee would be praying to CIT(A) for condonation of delay. He further agreed that the assessee shall also be making adequate representation on the merits of issues involved as and when called

Kunal Builders and Developers Private Limited, Bhopal vs. Assessment Unit Itd Delhi, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 631/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 249(3)

made a contrary conclusion stating “/ believe in the present case, cause of substantial justice would not be served by condoning inordinate delay of 193 days for which no cogent reason has been given. Therefore, appeal stand dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249(3) of Income ... read with Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 Paragraph 5(1)(ii)(a).” Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) is apparently wrong in rejecting condonation of delay in later part of impugned order when he has already condoned the delay in earlier part of his order. Not only that

Ashok Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ITO WD-2(1), Kota

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

ITA 1225/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.& Sh. Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 5

days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: The Humble - Assessee most respectfully begs to submit as under: 1. That in the aforesaid matter, the ld. CIT(A) passed ... benefit because of the delayed filing. The Hon'ble Courts have always advocated for a very liberal approach while considering a case for condonation of delay. 4. The denial/rejection of this prayer shall certainly result in to a genuine hardship with the humble assessee because denial to the deduction