“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

Ananvaya Nyasah, Jaipur vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 751/JPR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia (C.A.)For Respondent: Mrs. Meenakshi Vohra ( CIT) ( Th. V.C.) a

Section 12ASection 80G

delay of 01 days in filing of the appeals by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed applications for condonation of delay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit also :- “In the aforesaid context, it is humbly submitted that appeal ... support of the contentions so raised the Authorized signatory filed an affidavit to support the contentions raised in the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2.2 The ld. AR of the assessee appearing in these appeals submitted that the assessee is serious on the duties

Nidhivan Foundation, Alwar vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 736/JPR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia (C.A.)For Respondent: Mrs. Meenakshi Vohra ( CIT) ( Th. V.C.) a

Section 12A

support of the contentions so raised the Authorized signatory filed an affidavit to support the contentions raised in the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2.2 The ld. AR of the assessee appearing in these appeals submitted that the assessee is serious on the duties ... fact the assessee is at risk. 2.3. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR did not objected to assessee’s application for condonation of delay and prayed that Court may decide the issue as deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2.4 We have heard both

Nidhivan Foundation, Alwar vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 735/JPR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia (C.A.)For Respondent: Mrs. Meenakshi Vohra ( CIT) ( Th. V.C.) a

Section 12A

Shri Op Dargar Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 1246/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2024

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Mrs. Meenakshi Vohar, (CIT) (Th. V.C.)

Section 124Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 8Section 80G

appeals by the assessee for which Shri OP Dargar Foundation vs. CIT(E) the ld. AR of the assessee filed applications for condonation of delay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit also :- “1. That assessee-company is a Section 8 company and filed ... cause for delay in filing of appeal. In view of above submission you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable cause to condone the delay of 164 days and kindly remand back the case to CIT(Exemption), Jaipur. So, that proper inquiry can be conducted and substantial justice

Shri Op Dargar Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 1245/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2024

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Mrs. Meenakshi Vohar, (CIT) (Th. V.C.)

Section 124Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 8Section 80G

delay of 164 days in filing of the appeals by the assessee for which the Id. AR of the assessee filed applications for condonation of delay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit also :- “1. That assessee-company is a Section 8 company ... cause for delay in filing of appeal. In view of above submission you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable cause to condone the delay of 164 days and kindly remand back the case to CIT(Exemption), Jaipur. So, that proper inquiry can be conducted and substantial justice

Shri Op Dargar Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 1244/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2024

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1243 & 1244/JPR/2024 Shri OP Dargar Foundation P. N D-29, Janpath Shyam Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The CIT-Exemption, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABGCS7209B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs. Meenakshi Vohar, (C.A.) (Th. V.C.), Shri Kamlesh Kumar Meena (CIT) Proxy DR a lqu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Mrs. Meenakshi Vohar, (C.A.) (Th. V.C.)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 8Section 80G

Shri OP Dargar Foundation vs. CIT(E) In view of above submission you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable cause to condone the delay of 164 days and kindly remand back the case to CIT(Exemption), Jaipur. So, that proper inquiry can be conducted and substantial justice ... appellant.” In support of the contentions so raised the Authorized signatory filed an affidavit to support the contentions raised in the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2.2 The ld. AR of the assessee appearing in these appeals submitted that after taking proper legal advice that

Shri Op Dargar Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 1243/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2024

Bench: ITAT, then assessee-company engage a counsel and prepare appeal & filed the same before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench on 05.10.2024 (i.e. with a delay of 164 days). 4. Therefore, the non compliance was due to confusion of non- clarity of about the exact and right legal remedy available to the trust viz. re-apply or appeal. Therefore, the same can be treated as sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal. In view of above submission you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable c

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.)For Respondent: Mrs. Meenakshi Vohar, (C.A.) (Th. V.C.)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 8Section 80G

Surbhi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(4), Jaipur

ITA 1046/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Meena (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40Section 40A(3)Section 44A

days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: “1. In this connection it is submitted that the applicant is an individual assessee. The assessee challenged the order dated 30/11/2019 passed ... approaching the courts belatedly. It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within

Raju Rajesh, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hassan

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

ITA 2006/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh R. Uppin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Court and jurisdictional High Court.” 2. The above appeal filed by assessee is late by 62 days. Assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay along with the affidavit. Assessee has explained that assessee has received the appellate order on 18.6.2024 and appeal should have been filed ... assessee has submitted an affidavit that assessee is a resident of Hassan, who sent the appeal duly signed along with small condonation of delay by courier to the office of Advocate on 30.8.2024. This cover was misplaced by the Advocate and subsequently it was found and located on 18.10.2024 Page

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Eygbs (India) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the AO is dismissed

ITA 1586/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C(4)

account of annual general transfer and therefore there was delay in preparation of scrutiny report and filing of appeal. The petition for condonation of delay was filed on 23.9.2024. 6. The ld. DR submitted that delay is due to sufficient cause, nominal and therefore should be condoned

Bhavana Pratikkumar Bhatt, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center

ITA 1296/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250

submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the affidavit for condonation of delay. After hearing both the parties on the application for seeking condonation of delay and also keeping view the fact that the husband ... Thalamic region of the brain. The facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudicating on merits. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That on the facts and circumstances

Zuari International Limited (Formerlyj Known As Zuari Investment Ltd.), Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3551/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarzuari International Ltd. Vs. Dcit (Formerly Known As Zuari Circle – 25(1) Investment Ltd.) Delhi Plot No.2, Zamrudpur Community Centre, Kailash Colony, South Delhi – 110 048 Pan : Aaacz 0196 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. V. S. R. Krishna, C.A. & Shri Aman Goel, C.A. Respondent By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14A

Rs.4,55,35,119/- on account of disallowance of expenses under section 14A was made by learned AO. 3. Appellant/assessee preferred application for condonation of delay for 7 months and appeal before the learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) vide order dated 07.06.2024 dismissed the application of condonation of delay ... Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred present appeal. 5. Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that learned CIT(A) while dismissing application for condonation of delay of 7 months in filing appeal and appeal failed to appreciate that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Misc. Application No.21 of 2022 order

Susheel Kumar Sharma, Daliganj, Lucknow vs. ITO-4(4), Lucknow-New, Hazratganj, Lucknow

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

ITA 250/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 44ASection 69A

under section 253(3) of IT Act. As per noting of registry, this appeal is time barred. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal on medical ground, supported by medical certificate; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control ... admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay

Punjab Agricultual University, Ludhiana vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions, Chandigarh

In the result, Assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 661/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshi, Judical Member आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 661/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Punjab Agriculture University, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम Thapar Hall, Income Tax (Exemptions), Ferozepur Road, Chandigarh Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaabp0216H अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 492/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Punjab Agriculture University, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Thapar Hall, बनाम Income Tax (Exemptions), Ferozepur Road, Chandigarh Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaabp0216H अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate, राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12 .2024 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.: The Appeal In These Cases Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.05.2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Order

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

assessee has a reasonable cause and also that if there is a mistake of the counsel that is a good reason for condonation of delay. Reliance has been placed on following judgments: • Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee ... existence of the institution of courts. The learned Judges emphasized on adoption of a liberal approach while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay as ordinary a litigant does not stand*to benefit by lodging an appellate and refusal to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being

Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana vs. CIT (Exemption), Chandigarh

In the result, Assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 492/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Jagjit Singh, Patiala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Patiala

In the result we set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the file of Ld

ITA 105/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058720011(1) Dt. 13/12/2023 Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-12 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2010 To 31/03/2011. 2. Factual Matrix

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 22Section 250Section 253

suffering from chronic renal failure who ultimately expired on 04.04.2019 and a prayer was also made by filing a separate application for condonation of delay alongwith additional evidence which has not been considered and as such the order passed arbitrary and unjustified. 3. Without prejudice to the above ... Rule 45. Unfortunately the Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with preliminary ground at fag end of the impugned order and has infact not condoned the delay. In such circumstances we are not inclined to consider reasons sustaining the order of Ld. AO which order is under section 147/144

Atam Parkash, Patiala vs. CIT(Appeals), Patiala

ITA 412/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dev Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 271

facie time barred by 2061 days and therefore the assessee was asked to show cause why appeal should not be dismissed or why condonation of delay application as per rule should not be filed. The Registry by letter dated 04/07/2023 addressed to CIT(A) Patiala was requested to communicate

Sandvik Asia Employees Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Pune vs. Ward 8(3), Pune

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

ITA 2207/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2206 & 2207/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

assessee. Therefore, the assessee was unaware of the notices/orders framed which led to delay in filing the appeals. It is therefore prayed to condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 4. After hearing both the sides and taking into cognizance of the facts and circumstances ... Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT, 389 ITR 250 (Bom.) wherein it was held that in the matter of condonation of delay an overall view in the larger interest of justice has to be taken. None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless

Sandvik Asia Employees Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(3) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2206/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2206 & 2207/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Shubhamangal Sadi Depo, Hingoli vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Unit

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

ITA 1652/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69

Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT, 389 ITR 250 (Bom.) wherein it was held that in the matter of condonation of delay an overall view in the larger interest of justice has to be taken. None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless ... deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bonafides. I therefore condone the delay of 162 days and proceed for adjudication of appeal. 6. Facts in brief are that the assessee are that the assessee is a partnership firm