“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

Shri Basaveshwar Souharda Sahakari Sangha Niyamit, Kalloli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

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

ITA 485/PAN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

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

No.485/PAN/2025 Shri Basaveshwar Souharda Sahakari Sangha Niyamit . appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the application and affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, condone the delay and admit

Mohammed Usman, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/RPR/2026[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mohammed Usman C/25, Nandini Road, Power House, Bhilai-490 011, Dist. Durg Pan: Aafpu9292H

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

follows: 3 Mohammed Usman Vs. ITO-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) 3. The Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection regarding the condonation of delay. 4. Considering the contents of the condonation petition a/w. affidavit and relying on various judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji

Vishwanath Gupta, Manendragarh vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur

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

ITA 786/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yash Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 250Section 254

Delhi High Court has held that in absence of anything malafide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, the Court should normally condone the delay as the intent is always to promote substantial justice following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag ... filing this appeal after the prescribed time limit is satisfactory and that is why Ld. Sr. DR does not raise any objection for condonation of delay. We, therefore, do not see any prejudice which will be caused to the Revenue in deciding this appeal on merit. In light of aforesaid

Tulu Koota Airoli, Mumbai vs. ITO-Exmp Ward 2(4), Mumbai

ITA 5791/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalιτα No. 5791/Mum/2025

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 249(2)

taken by assessee are reproduced as under: 1. The Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by rejecting the request made for condonation in delay in filing of appeal. That the delay was owing to genuine reasons and the dismissal is arbitrary and not justified. 2. The Ld. AddL/JCIT ... before the due date of return of income ought to be considered. 3. Through ground no.1, assessee is contesting on the denial of condonation of delay in filing the first appeal by the ld. Addl./JCIT(A). Fact of the matter is that there was a delay of 1977 days

Sahyadri Adivasi Bahuvidh Seva Sangh, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption, Thane

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

ITA 2466/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Sahyadri Adivasi Bahuvidh Income Tax Officer, Seva Sangh Exemption, Savarkar Road, Opp. S.T Mumbai Johns High School. Vs. Thane (West), Mumbai - 400601 (Pan: Aadts9375D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Suhas P. Bora, Ca Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl./Jcit (A)-2, Surat, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1072463266(1), Dated 23.01.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Thane, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 25.12.2018, For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

filed form 10 on 07.12.2017 suo moto without any willful default or intention to defraud. b. The appellant had filed the application for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act before the office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune on 19.04.2018. c. The appellant had invested ... There is a delay of 96 days noted by the Registry in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, for which petition of condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. 3.1. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal of the same

Vasudha Premkumar Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 59(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 5371/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(2)Section 250

time limit of 30 days as per section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act., 1961 and therefore there is no question of condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. 3. The appellant craves to add, amend, modify OR alter any grounds of appeal at any time OR before

Vicky Agro Food Products & Suppliers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-8(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 9158/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarvicky Agro Food Ito-8(3)(3), Products & Suppliers Room No. 616, 6Th Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 125/129, Central M. K. Road, Warehousing Churchgate, Mumbai- Corporation Building 400020 Reay Road (East), Mumbai-400 033 Pan/Gir No. Aadcv3351K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kiran Mehta, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 20.03.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. Condonation of Delay 2. At the outset, it is noticed that the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 26 days beyond the prescribed period ... limitation. The Registry has pointed out the said delay. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. In the said petition, the assessee has stated that the order of the learned CIT(A) which

Satyaraj Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6539/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 144Section 69A

Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 13 days. 4. In the application seeking condonation of delay, it has been stated that, the Chairman of assessee was busy with certain medical issues in the family and to visit his native place ... which the delay occurred. The assessee thus prayed for condonation of delay by submitting the reasonable cause by way of an affidavit filed through its Chairman. 4.1. The Ld.AR has submitted that, both the authorities below have not got opportunity to verify the details available with the assessee

Gopalkrishna Narla Rao, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 6488/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishgopalkrishna Narla Rao, Income Tax Officer, A/12/46 Sunder Nagar Kalina, Ward 16(2)(4), Vs. Santacruz East, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400098 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpr 1916R Appellant By : Shri M Subramnian Respondent By : Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr.- Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16 .03.2026

For Appellant: Shri M SubramnianFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr.- DR

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. At the outset, we observe, present appeal is delayed by 10 days. Seeking condonation of delay, the assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit. 2 Gopalkrishna Narla Rao It is the say of the assessee that due to heavy rains on 15th ... assessee, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal is due to reasonable cause. Hence, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a practicing Chartered Accountant. For the assessment year under dispute

Electronfab Engineering Pvt Ltd, Seepz Sez Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4828/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate (virtually appear) & Mrs. Usha DalalFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 115BSection 115JSection 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250

Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes " Circular No.6/2022 New Delhi, the 17th March, 2022 Sub: Condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in filing of Form 10-IC for assessment year 2020-21 - Reg Section ... required to accompany with the returns, be condoned. The CBDT had considered the hardship faced by the domestic companies and decided to condone the delay in cases where certain conditions as specified in paragraph 3 of the circular were satisfied. Clause (ii) of paragraph no.3 of the Circular makes

Maheswari Panchayat Balod, Balod vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 140/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.137, 138, 139 & 140/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Rajnandgaon, Balod, Chhattisgarh-491 226 Pan: Aaaam7320E

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 154(7)

limitation itself. 6. That the Hon’ble Apex Court in certain judgments has held that justice oriented approach has to be considered while condoning the delay of the assessee. The word ‘justice oriented approach’ also combines bonafideness on the part of the assessee as well as sufficient cause for such ... condonation of delay coupled with the merits of the matter. 7. In the present case, no evidence has been furnished for establishing such sufficient cause for such huge delay of 9 years 233 days. That at the same time, no materials were brought on record to even suggest that

Maheswari Panchayat Balod, Balod vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 139/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 154(7)

Maheswari Panchayat Balod, Balod vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 138/RPR/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 154(7)

Maheswari Panchayat Balod, Balod vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 137/RPR/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 154(7)

Agrawal Sponge Ltd., Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 136/RPR/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.136/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Agrawal Sponge Limited 91-92, Siltara Growth Centre, Phase-Ii, Birgaon, Raipur-493 221 (C.G.) Pan: Aaeca3183F

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Chawda, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 249(3)Section 250(4)

assessee submitted that if one final opportunity is provided to the assessee, they will furnish all the relevant documents/evidences explaining the condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. 6. The Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection as regards the contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel ... justice, we allow one final opportunity to the assessee to present relevant evidence/documents before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC explaining the reasons for condonation of delay and after going through those evidences, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall specifically decide whether such delay can be condoned as per Section

Gnrc Ltd, Dispur vs. ITO W-2(1), Guwahati, Gs Road

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

ITA 49/GTY/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Chandak, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Pandey, JCIT

Counsel of the assessee submitted before us that the Learned CIT (A) has passed the appellate order dismissing the appeal in Limine without condoning the delay of 3 years, 4 months and 14 days, which was on account of bona fide and genuine reasons. The ld. Counsel for the assessee ... materials available on record , we observe that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of condonation of delay without considering the merit of the case. When substantial justice is pitted against technicality such as limitation, it is always better to follow the principles

Sentilemba, Mokokchung, Nagaland vs. ITO Ward 2, Dimapur

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

ITA 23/GTY/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sidhant Sharma, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Dipak Singh, CIT-DR

Counsel of the assessee submitted before us that the Learned CIT (A) has passed the appellate order dismissing the appeal in Limine without condoning the delay of 144 days, which was on account of bona fide and genuine reasons. The Id. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order passed ... materials available on record , we observe that the Id. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of condonation of delay and without considering the merit of the case. When substantial justice is pitted against technicality such as limitation, it is always better to follow

Namrup College, Namrup vs. ITO Ward 2(4) Exemp, Shillong

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

ITA 20/GTY/2026[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumarnamrup College, I.T.O., Po Parbatpur, Namrup, Ward-2(2),Exemp., Vs. Dibrugarh-786623 (Assam) Shillong. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatn 8580 E Assessee By : Shri Dindayal Dhandharia, Fca Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing: 13/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/03/2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Dindayal Dhandharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl.CIT

Counsel of the assessee submitted before us that the Learned CIT (A) has passed the appellate order dismissing the appeal in Limine without condoning the delay of 165 days, which was on account of bona fide and genuine reasons. The ld. Counsel for the assessee 2 Namrup College ... materials available on record, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of condonation of delay and without considering the merit of the case. When substantial justice is pitted against technicality such as limitation, it is always better to follow

Shree Aishwarya Laxmi Mahila Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 9(3), Pune

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

ITA 114/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.114/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shree Aishwarya Laxmi Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Mahila Nagari Sahakari Ward-9(3), Pune Patsanstha Maryadit, Plot No.16, Vijaynagar Colony, Vadgaon, Tal. Maval, Dist. Pune 412 106 Maharashtra Pan : Aaaam7430P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar

Section 147Section 250

submits that there is a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit and hence, the appellant requests for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In view of the above, it is humble prayer before the Hon. Bench to kindly condone the delay and grant ... case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 45 days before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3 Shree Aishwarya Laxmi Mahila Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit 4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

Babasaheb Bhagawan Atkire, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 7, Pune

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

ITA 1369/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

deliberate but solely due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control. 3. That the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the original appeal against the assessment order dated 23.12.2019. The said CIT(A) order was passed on 20.06.2024. 4. That the appellant ... view of the above facts and circumstances, the appellant respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to: a. Condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal; b. Admit and hear the appeal on merits; or alternatively, sent