“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

Ajit Deepak Gupte, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 110/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth Kini, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT

Section 90

days in filing both the appeals by the assessee. The assessee has ITA No.109 &110/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 6 submitted a petition for condonation of delay, stating that after receiving the CIT(A) order, he approached the Assessing Officer (AO) to seek the benefit under section 90/91 ... litigation. Accordingly, we are of the view that the delay deserves to be . ITA No.109 &110/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 6 condoned. Therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the issue raised by the assessee on its merits. First, we take up ITA No. 110/Bang/2025, an appeal

Ajit Deepak Gupte, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 109/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth Kini, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT

Section 90

Sheetal Nilesh Mhatre, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi, Mumbai

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

ITA 6466/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us & In This Regard Assessee Relied Upon Applications For Seeking Condonation Of Delay Has Mentioned As Under:

Section 250

noticed that there is a delay in filing the appeal before us and in this regard assessee relied upon applications for seeking condonation of delay has mentioned as under: 2 Sheetal Nilesh Mhatre, Mumbai 3. The delay in filing the appeal occurred due to a lack of proper communication ... have filed the without any further delay. 3. On the other hand, Ld. DR contested the contentions raised by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay. 4. After having heard the counsel for both the parties on the request for seeking condonation of delay, I found that the assessee

Vinod Nihalchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 6156/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailvinod Nihalchand Jain Ltd., 28, 3Rd Floor, Vishvashanti Chs, Kedarmal Road, Malad (East), Mumbai – 400097 Maharashtra ……………. Appellant Pan – Acipj6853E

For Appellant: Shri Ravi DasijaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 45

Year 2015-16. 2. The present appeal is delayed by 45 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed the application seeking condonation of delay submitting as follows: - ITA No.6156 -Mum-2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) 2 “The captioned appeal has been filed with a delay of approximately Five weeks ... weeks in filing this appeal may kindly be condoned.” 3. We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag

M/S. Douceur Sportwear Mfg. Co Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-15(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6152/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Smt. Swapnil Newaskar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 41Section 41(1)

Year 2013-14. 2. The present appeal is delayed by 23 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed the application seeking condonation of delay submitting as follows: 1) The assesse states that the Appellate order dated 02/09/2024 received on 03/09/2024 is passed against the assesse. The manager

Desai Homes, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT Non Corp Circle 2(1), Cochin

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 316/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Desai Homes .......... Appellant Dd Trade Tower, Kadavanthra Road Kaloor, Kochi 682017 [Pan: Aacfd0390E] Vs. Acit, Non-Corporte Circle 2(1) .......... Respondent C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Kochi 682018 Appellant By: Ms. Rohini Thampy, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Rohini Thampy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

outset we find that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 338 days. The appellant filed application seeking condonation of delay wherein it is stated that the delay had occurred 3 Desai Homes on account of sudden demise of the Managing Partner, Shri V.R. Desai

Narikkolil Hameed, Kozhikode vs. ACIT International Taxation, Kochi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 200/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2010-11 Narikkolil Hameed .......... Appellant Narikolil House, Kummankode P.O. Nadapuram, Calicut 673504 [Pan: Aaqph1056H] Vs. Ddit (International Taxation) .......... Respondent Kochi Appellant By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

outset we find that there is a delay of 37 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a condonation petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred, since the appellant was located at a distant place from the Tax Consultant, the order ... deliberate. Having considered the averments mae in the petition, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay of 37 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available

Sadguru Kabir Samajsevi Sanstha Samiti, Ujjain vs. CIT Exemption, Bhopal

ITA 605/IND/2024[NIL]Status: HeardITAT Indore11 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisadguru Kabir Samajsevi Cit Exemption, Sanstha Samiti, Bhopal Kadai, बनाम/ Rupakhedi Tarana, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaxas3233R Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2025

Section 12ASection 253

help of Ld. DR and grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. The Ld. DR has fair enough not to object for condonation of delay. Delay condoned. Appeal taken for hearing. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That the assessee is a charitable society applied in Form 11AB for registration u/s 12AB

Ashish Kumar Jain, Sitapur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Sitapur

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

ITA 60/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ashish Kumar Jain V. The Dcit Prop. M/S Ashish Engineering Works Sitapur Nai Basti, Kotwali Road Mahmudabad, Sitapur Tan/Pan:Aispj2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 69A

there is a delay of 35 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application dated 21.01.2025 for condonation of delay, stating therein that the order dated 15.07.2024 of the NFAC was served on the assessee only on 24.10.2024, therefore, the appeal could ... delay being condoned. 8. In view of the prayer made by the Assessee and no objection by the Ld. Sr. D.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 9. The Ld. Senior D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal

Dharamveer, Pilibhit vs. Income Tax Officer, Pilibhit

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

ITA 57/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Dharamveer V. Income Tax Officer R/O Mohalla Bakhtawar Lal Ward 2(4) Barah Patthar Chauraha Pilibhit-1 Tehsil Bisalpur Pilibhit Tan/Pan:Amvpd5162F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Veerender Kumar, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Veerender Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 28.01.2025 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit, stating therein that the assessee was residing in a rural area and was not conversant with the ITA No.57/LKW/2025 Page ... view of the prayer made by the Assessee, duly supported by an Affidavit and no objection by the Ld. D.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 8. The ld. Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted before me that the NFAC

Athletic Studio Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 56/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Athletic Studio V. The Dcit/Acit-1 Private Limited Lucknow 11-Cp/2, Ring Road Vikas Nagar, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aalca7841H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

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

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 68

days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 24.01.2025 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit and Medical Certificate, stating therein that the Director of the assessee-company, Shri Nagendra Kumar Agarwal was confined ... view of the prayer made by the Assessee, duly supported by an Affidavit, Medical Certificate and no objection by the Ld. D.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 8. The ld. AR submitted that due to ill-health of the Director

Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 692/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Vs. Pcit, Pune-4. Sr. No.14, Shree Datta Colony, Akashwani, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aimpt5087G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Pr.Cit, Pune- 4 [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Setting Aside Assessment Order For Fresh Assessment On The Ground That Assessment Has Been Framed

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 48

fact that a delay condonation petition supported by an affidavit has been filed before this Tribunal through which the assessee is seeking condonation of delay of 730 days in filing of this appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. AR further submitted that the delay of 730 days as 7 pointed ... against the impugned order & only when the consequential order was passed against him he came before this Tribunal. Accordingly, Ld. DR objected to condone the delay since the assesse failed to provide any 10 genuine reason which prevented him to file the appeal with such a huge delay

Koteswara Rao Malleboyina, Andhra Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ongole

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

ITA 202/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. Jyothisri Vankina, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vishnu Priya, SR-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

there is a delay of 8 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and an affidavit explaining the delay in filing of the appeal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that, the assessee was suffering from ... intentional and was due to the reason beyond the control of the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. 2.1 After hearing the Learned Department Representative (“Ld. DR”) and pursuing the reason submitted by the assessee

Raziulla Syed, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 986/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 195

delay of 134 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for condonation of delay. We are satisfied with the reasons furnished by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal. We, therefore, condone the delay of 134 days

Variya Denim Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose subject to above directions

ITA 43/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2013-14 Variya Denim Private Limited, The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Office: A-802, Ward – 11(1), Kolkata, Parijat Eclat, Behing Iskon Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Vs Temple, Vikram Nagar, Ambli Chowringhee Square, Brt Road, Off: S G Highway Kolkata - 700069 Ahmedabad - 380058 (Pan: Aadcb1371M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abhikshek Bansal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR

Section 250

appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. Appeal of the assessee is time barred by 191 days. In respect of the condonation of delay the assessee has filed an application explaining the 2 Variya Denim Private Limited., AY: 2013-14 reasons for the delay. Considering the averments made ... said application, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. A perusal of the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) show that they are ex parte, as the assessee did not represent before them because the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

M/S. Top Ten Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose subject to above directions

ITA 34/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Top Ten Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Ito, Ward-1(3), Kolkata, 74, Bentick Street, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Vs Kolkata - 700001 Esplanade, Chowringhee (Pan: Aaact9567C) North, Bow Barracks, Kolkata - 700069 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 250

appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. Appeal of the assessee is time barred by 38 days. In respect of the condonation of delay the assessee has filed an application explaining the 2 M/s Top Ten Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., AY: 2015-16 reasons for the delay. Considering the averments made ... said application, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. A perusal of the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) show that they are ex parte, as the assessee did not represent before them because the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

Tirupati Infrapromoters Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC-1(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2371/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey& Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

For Appellant: M/s Tirupati Infrapromoters pvt. Ltd

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

Bose Road, Kolkata-700020 Assessee: M/s Tirupati Infrapromoters pvt. Ltd. PAN: AADCT 3567 D Asst. year: 2015-16 Sub: Prayer for the condonation of Delay Your Honours, The order dated 10.06.2024 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the AY 2015-16 passed by the Commissioner ... raise any objection. On perusal of the petition we find that delay caused was not intentional, therefore, we condone the delay and admit these appeals for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that a search and seizure operation was conducted