“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

Dhoop Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward - 1(4), Jaipur

ITA 1241/JPR/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Us Today, Under Signatures Of The Appellant- Applicant Seeking Condonation Of Delay Of 123 Days. Affidavit Of The Applicant In Support Of The Application Has Already Been Filed On 15.01.2025.

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Poonia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

beyond prescribed period of limitation. 2. During pendency of the appeal, on 16.01.2025, an application came to be presented seeking condonation of delay of 123 days in filing the appeal. Since it was signed by the Authorized Representative - Chartered Accountant of the application, and was not maintainable, fresh application ... been presented before us today, under signatures of the appellant- applicant seeking condonation of delay of 123 days. Affidavit of the applicant in support of the application has already been filed on 15.01.2025. 2. While arguing on the point of condonation of delay, Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted

Ram Babu Jhalani, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Jaipur

ITA 1218/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Him. 2.1 At The Outset Of Hearing, The Bench Observed That There Is Delay Of 151 Days In Filing Of The Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Filed Application For Seeking Condonation Of Delay, With Following Prayers & The Assessee To This Effect Also Filed An Affidavit Also :-

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT (Th. V.C.)

Section 147Section 250

days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed application for seeking condonation of delay, with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit also :- “The Id. CIT (A) fixed up the matter for hearing and sent ... overall facts included age of the assessee, he being senior citizen, and affidavit of AR we 4 Ram Babu Jhalani vs. ITO condone the delay of 151 days in filing the appeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector

Income Tax Officer, Beawar vs. Sangeeta Bafna, Mewari Bazar Beawar

13. In view of the above discussion, ITA No

ITA 1110/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Feeling Aggrieved By Assessment Order Dated 12.03.2021 Passed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2022-23. Vide Said Assessment Order, The Assessing Officer Finally Computed Taxable Income Of The Assessee As Under:- “Final Computation Of Taxable Income: Sl. No. Description Amount (In Inr)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 270A

mentioned here that the appeal has been filed after 4 days of the prescribed period for filing of appeal. Seeking condonation of delay, an application has been filed by the Department –applicant. Learned DR for the applicant has submitted that copy of the order sheets passed in the assessment proceedings ... condoned. In response, learned AR for the assessee has not opposed the submission put forth by Learned DR on the point of condonation of delay. Having regard to the submissions put forth by Learned DR, we find it to be a fit case to condone the short delay

M/S Little Kanhaya Knitwears, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana

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

ITA 724/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 724/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018019 M/S Little Kanhya Vs. The Dcit बनाम Central Circle-3, Knitwears, Ludhiana Ram Gali, Madhpuri-1, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaefl0415E अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 36Section 40

issue of delay in filing the appeal. Moreover, during the appellate proceedings also, no document has been filed for condonation of delay. Hence the delay remains unsubstantiated and cannot be condoned.” 2.6 It is also recorded in the impugned order “In the result, the appeal is dismissed with both being ... very first appeal under the Act no serious prejudice is caused to the Revenue. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, ought to have condoned the delay even when no condonation of delay application was filed. The consequence of such rejection is more serious on Assessee than the Revenue. Such rejection

Sujit Arun Taware, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Sangli

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2381/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2381/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri UmeshkumarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

there was ‘reasonable cause’ on the part of the assessee which prevented him in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, we condone the delay of 38 days in filing the appeal in the larger interest of justice and proceed for adjudication of appeal on merits. 3. Facts ... ld.CIT(A) with a delay of about 4 months and the ld.CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine, without condoning the delay by observing as under : “8.9.7 From the above decisions it becomes clear that in the case of condonation of delay where the appeal was filed

Jermel'S Accademy, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Siliguri

ITA 994/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(1)Section 250

regards the appeal for AY 2017-18, there is a delay of 217 days. The assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. The affidavit reads as under: “I, Salim John Sadiq, son of Riyaz Nasim Sadiq, aged 49 years, by religion Christian, working ... true to the best of my knowledge and belief and paragraph 11 is an undertaking by me.” 2.1. Considering the application for condonation of delay as well as the affidavit and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee had reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from

Jermel'S Accademy, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Siliguri

ITA 993/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(1)Section 250

Jermel'S Accademy, Siliguri vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Siliguri

ITA 992/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(1)Section 250

Unicorn Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru

Appeal are allowed for

ITA 2083/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

consider the appeal on merits. The appellant’s grounds of appeal were substantial and warranted examination, but due to the rejection of condonation of delay, the merits were not evaluated. 3. For the facts and in the circumstances, the CPC erred in making an addition of 23,20,740/- under ... rejection of rectification under Section 154. This appeal was filed to contest the addition made under Section 143(1) and sought to condone the delay in filing the appeal due to reliance on the rectification mechanism. Order of the CIT(A): The CIT(A), vide order dated 23.08.2024, dismissed

Sharayu Foundation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

ITA 5115/MUM/2024[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule

Section 10ASection 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

30/06/2024 vide Circular No.07 of 2000, dated 25/04/2024, and the Assessee has filed application in Form 10A on 21/11/2024 alongwith application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the application. It was further submitted that the rejection of the application without confronting the Assessee had resulted in grave prejudice

Caregiver Saathi Foundation, Goregaon Mumbai vs. Dy.Director of Income Tax CPC Bengluru

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

ITA 4002/MUM/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2022-23 Caregiver Saathi Foundation, Dy. Cit, Cpc 1703, Sienna Tower Wing-B, Lodha Bengluru-560100. Vs. Florenza, Western Express Highway N Ext, To Hub Mall, Goregaon, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aaicc 5644 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 14/01/2025

Section 11Section 139Section 139(1)

held that the Central Board of Direct Taxes had authorized the respective Commissioner of Income zed the respective Commissioner of Income- -tax to condone the delay in filing the Form No. 10B. The relevant finding of the the delay in filing the Form No. 10B. The relevant finding ... whereby it 020, whereby it authorized the Commissioners of Income authorized the Commissioners of Income-tax to admit tax to admit applications for condonation of delay in filing Form 9A, Form applications for condonation of delay in filing Form 9A, Form applications for condonation of delay in filing Form

Suman Ahmed, Gauripur vs. ITO, Ward- Dhubri, Dhubri

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

ITA 45/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Gty/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kushal SoniFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Sekar Das

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.NFAC but with a delay of 98 days. The ld. NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. Suman Ahmed 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the impugned order. 5. We have heard both the parties ... perused the record placed before us. A perusal of impugned order would reveal that the ld. NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 98 days. While doing so, the ld. NFAC in para No.5.2 of the order held as under : “Further, the assessment proceedings were mandatorily

Rama Katowal Chetry, Golaghat vs. ITO Ward Golaghat, Golaghat

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

ITA 106/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.105 & 106/Gty/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jha

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 69A

holding as under : “2. It is seen that the appellant has not filed Form No.35, Statement of Facts, Grounds of appeal, Application for Condonation of delay, ITA Nos.105 and 106/GTY/2024 Rama Katowal Chetry Particulars of payment of Appeal Fee. It is also seen that the appellant failed to enclose ... paper book filed before us, we find that the assessee has properly filed Form No.35, statement of facts, Grounds of appeal, Application for condonation of delay etc. The ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has merely dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving a bald finding that the assessee has not filed

Rama Katowal Chetry, Golaghat vs. ITO Ward Golaghat, Golaghat

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

ITA 105/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.105 & 106/Gty/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jha

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 69A

Shree Liliya Lathi Taluka Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd., at. Liliya Mota, Taluka Lathi, Dist. Amreli vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (1) (4), Amreli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, is dismissed, as withdrawn

ITA 831/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.831/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2019-20) Liliya Lathi Taluka Sahkari Income Tax Officer Ward- बनाम Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. 3(1)(4), Rajkot. At Liliya Mota, Vs. Amreli-365535. Pan/Gir No. Abkas8870J "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80P

vide order dated 11.01.2021. 2. At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee, begins by pointing out that assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, which has been allowed by the ld. CCIT -Rajkot, vide his order dated 14.11.2024. Since

Dipak Kumar Singh & Sons HUF, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2), Patna

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

ITA 647/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the delay was on account of ignorance of law and the assessee was alerted for filing the appeal only when they received a notice proposing levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue of delayed filing with the help of several authorities on the subject and has declined to condone the said delay due to which the appeal was dismissed. 3.1 Further aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 54F

Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed as the Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone a delay of 778 days in filing of the said appeal. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the delay was on account of ignorance ... carefully considered the arguments of Ld. AR/DR and also gone through the records. A reading of the judicial precedents on the issue of condonation of delay, the following case laws would be relevant: i. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 (SC) 3222, the Supreme Court of India

Ranjeet Prasad, Patna vs. ITO Ward 6(5), Patna

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

ITA 270/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 2(24)Section 250

Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The appeal is time barred by 66 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the averments made in the application and shortness of the delay, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. At the outset

Munna Kumar, Siwan vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Patna

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

ITA 557/PAT/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250Section 50CSection 54

Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. This appeal is time barred by 47 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the averments made in the said application and the shortness of the delay, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and the same

Pinku Kumar Sah, Araria vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Purnia

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

ITA 480/PAT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 147Section 250Section 68

assessee in this appeal has taken up the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the condonation of delay on submission of 2nd appeal for 220 days consisting of 08 months and 09 days may kindly be granted for the sake of justice

Kamlesh Hasmukhlal Gajjar HUF, Surat vs. ITO, Circle 1(3), Surat

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

ITA 1084/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani(Hybrid Hearing) Kamlesh Hasmukhlal Gajjar Huf, A.C.I.T., 401-402, Sai Leela Appartment, Nr. Circle-1(3), Vs. Umrigar School, Umra, Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Aahhk 7551 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)

assessee submits that the delay of 2 days is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to miscalculation of time period, which may be condoned. The delay in filing is not inordinate. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue has not opposed ... prayer of assessee for condonation of delay. Considering the submissions of both the parties, delay of 2 days in filing before the Tribunal is condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 3. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the case of assessee was reopened