“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Indian Bank, Chennai

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

ITA 1527/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 90

delay of 60 days in filing of appeal by the Revenue [ITA No. 1527/Chny/2024]. On perusal of the application filed for condonation of delay, and submissions of the Ld. DR, we find there is reasonable cause for delay, which prevented the Department in filing the appeal in time. Thus

Shri C. Thangaraj, Tirupur vs. PCIT-3, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 382/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Chny/2020 िनधा'रण वष'/Assessment Year: 2014-15 C. Thangaraj, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 1, Vaikkal Thottam, Palladam Income Tax - 3, Road, Tirupur 641 604. Coimbatore. [Pan:Abtpt5217E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (*+थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A. Arjun Raj, C.A. By Virtual *+थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri N. Balakrishnan, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, C.A. by virtualFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263

though it is delayed. 3. By referring to the contents of the duly notarized affidavit as well as application for condonation of delay, the Ld. AR has submitted that there was reasonable cause for the delay and the delay in filing the appeal is neither willful nor wanton ... prayed for condoning the delay. Against the above averments of the assessee, the Ld. DR couldn’t contradict the same. Considering the contents of the application filed and affidavit in support, for condoning the delay, we find reasonable cause, and condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication

Sri. Diwakar Awasthi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1722/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2014-15 Sri Diwakar Awasthi 29/1 Flat No.001, Usha Paradise Shanthi Main Road Shanthinagar Ito Vs. Bangalore South Ward-2(1)(1) Bangalore 560 027 Bangalore

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 250

days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC & the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay on the sole ground that the assessee has neglected/omitted to assert its right of appeal in a timely manner & also failed to demonstrate that sufficient ... affidavit in support of the reasons mentioned in the condonation petition filed before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The application dated 18.10.2024 for condonation of delay along with an affidavit in original sworn before the Notary Public are reproduced below for ease of reference & record: Sri Diwakar Awasthi, Bangalore Page

Nilesh Ratnakar Deshpande, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1382/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri G. Venkatesh, A.R

Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

There is a delay of 941 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee had filed an application dated 22/07/2024 for condonation of delay along with an affidavit in original sworn before the Notary Public, which are reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience ... Main, RMV Extension II Stage, Bengaluru 560 094. Appellant AND Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(3)(1), Bengaluru. Respondent APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 The Appellant above named most respectfully submits as follows- 1. It is submitted that

Rinku Deshpande, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1381/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri G. Venkatesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 250

There is a delay of 505 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee had filed an application dated 22/07/2024 for condonation of delay along with an affidavit in original sworn before the Notary Public, which are reproduced below for ease of reference & convenience: Rinku Deshpande, Bangalore Page ... Bangalore Page 6 of 12 Rinku Deshpande, Bangalore Page 7 of 12 4. The ld. D.R. on the other hand strongly opposed to condone the delay and requested not to allow the appeal for adjudication and dismiss the appeal in limine. 5. We have gone through the reasons explained

Gopal & Sons HUF, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 32(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1701/KOL/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2025AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

took quite a long time and accordingly, the delay may be condoned. The ld. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Since these appeals relate

DCIT, Kolkata vs. Kohinoor Bengal Infrastructure Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1531/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2287 & 2288/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 & 2012-2013) & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1531 & 1532/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 & 2012-2013) B.G.M. Consortium Limited, Vs P.C.I.T. Kolkata-1/ Room No.1014/145, 10Th Floor, Acit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata Kirishna Building, 224 Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata West Bengal-700 017 Pan No. :Aaccb 2065 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Miraz D. Shah, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Respondent: None

Section 263

four appeals, ITA Nos.2287 & 2288/Kol/2025 are filed belatedly by 1592 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation condonation of delay which are not found to be false. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 1592 days delay each in both the appeals and both the appeals are admitted ... ΙΤΑ. Νο.2288/Kol/2025 for AY 2012-13 ITA.No. 1531/Kol/2025 for AY 2011-12 ITA.No. 1532/Kol/2025 for AY 2012-13 PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY The Humble Petition of the Appellant Above Named MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: 1. That the appellant has filed four appeals before this Hon'ble Tribunal

Arun Bhardwaj, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2010-2011

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

case of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and requested for taking a liberal approach for condonation of delay. The ld. A/R further relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vedbai vs. Shantaram Baburam Patil & Others ... lenient view and considering the principles laid down in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC), we condone the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal before us. 4 Arun Bhardwaj, Delhi. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

Heena Roshan Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 5844/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra Menghani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gotimukul Santosh Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 69A

refuted the claim of the Assessee on the reason that the Assessee has not filed any document substantiating the claim for condonation of delay. Having considered the delay as miniscule which is 12 days and the reason submitted by the Assessee as bonafide and unintentional, the delay is condoned

Laxmikant Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, in view of judgment in ITA No

ITA 5828/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Vidyadhar N. Khandekar, Ld. C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gotimukul Santosh Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

deliberate or malafide intention or negligence but because of the aforesaid reasons, which were beyond control and therefore the assessee is praying for condonation of delay by taking lenient view. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee by submitting that on ITBA portal, order passed

Laxmikant Co Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, in view of judgment in ITA No

ITA 5827/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Vidyadhar N. Khandekar, Ld. C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gotimukul Santosh Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Mr Nagarajan Chandrashekhar, Mumbai vs. International Tax Ward-2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4100/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Modi, CA (Virtually appear)

Section 10(10)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

delay of 503 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee in this regard filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay. In the condonation petition it is stated that the assessee has filed the appeal before the CIT(A) against petition for rectification of order passed ... held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC), we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The ld. AR submitted that the salary income earned by the assessee includes

DCIT(It)-2(2)(2), Nariman Point vs. Iss As, Denmark

ITA 1640/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 92C

defect memo stating that the appeal is time barred by 26 days and that the Revenue has not filed any petition for condonation of delay. When queried by the Bench, the ld. DR submitted that the date of service of order of CIT(A) has been erroneously mentioned in Form ... merit in the submission that there is no delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue and accordingly there is no requirement of condoning the delay. The appeal is admitted thus for adjudication. 5. The ld. DR submitted that the nature of service as per assessee's own submission

Nidhi Goyal, Haryana vs. DCIT, Hisar

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

ITA 886/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

sufficient cause which was beyond the control of the assessee. 5. We have heard both the counsels on the issue of condonation of delay. In our considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the cross objections. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the cross

Davinder Singh, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Mohali

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 746/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

appeal of the assessee before the ld. A.Y.2017-18 2 first appellate authority was time barred by 62 days. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal on account of being time barred. He took us to page number 1 to 5 of the Paper Book where ... copy of the application for condonation of delay of delay filed under Section 249 sub-section (3) is available. He submitted that this delay of 62 days happened on account of non filing of the appeal by the authorized representative. The assessee has handed over all necessary papers

Sariputta Charitable Trust, Chhindwara vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

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

ITA 127/JAB/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2022-23 Sariputta Charitable Trust V. Commissioner Of Income Khajri Dhimradhan, Tax (Exemption) Chhindwara, 480001. Room No.201, Ii Floor, Reac, Bhopal, 462016, Madhya Pradesh. Pan:Aarts8965K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: None Date Of Hearing: 06 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 01 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: None

Section 12A

outset, we find that the appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 280 days, for which, a petition for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal explaining the reasons for delay, has been filed by the assessee (A copy of condonation of delay has also been enclosed ... case, we are of the view that there was reasonable Page 3 of 4 cause for delay in filing the appeal, we hereby condone the delay following the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition

Upakar Infra Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Cent Cir-2(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 377/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.377 & 404/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2017-18) Shri Gnanasekaran Vs. Income Tax Officer Manikandan, Hyderabad Ward 7 (1) Pan:Aeqpm0159J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri B Yadagiri, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Sankari Pandi, P, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri B Yadagiri, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Sankari Pandi, P, Sr.AR

Section 143(1)

learned CIT (A), however, the learned CIT (A) declined to Page 12 of 28 ITA Nos 377 and 404 of 2025 Gnanasekaran Manikandan condone the delay of 5201 days in filing the appeal and dismissed the same in limine without going into the merits of the case. 4. Before ... served with the said intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee has filed the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) and also filed the affidavit of the assessee to explain the reasons for the delay

Shree Swaminarayan Mandir Trust, Rampar vs. The ITO, Exemption Ward - 1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, in above terms

ITA 340/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.340/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21)

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

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

registration, tax liability is fastened even though they may otherwise be eligible for exemption and fulfil other substantive conditions. However, the power of condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available. 8.3 In order to provide relief to such trusts and remove hardship in genuine cases, section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Avinash Singla, Khanna

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 815/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 814 & 815/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Avinash Singla, Central Circle-1, बनाम C-47, C.O Avinash Ludhiana Industries, Focal Point, Khanna "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Acypk9591N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 15/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Meenu Singla, बनाम Central Circle-1, C-47, C.O Avinash Ludhiana Industries, Focal Point, Khanna "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No.Afips6556G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Advocate and Shri Virsain AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction ... looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss”. 7. We do not deem it necessary

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Avinash Singla, Khanna

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 814/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Advocate andFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5