“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

JCIT(OSD), Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Allahabad Bank (Merged With Indian Bank), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 736/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Aditya, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 143(3)Section 154

files the appeal before the Kolkata Bench, within 30 days of after receipt of this order, the Kolkata Bench may sympathetically consider the condonation of delay in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as discussed (supra). 8. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order

Kpr Mill Limited, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corp Circle-2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1244/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1244/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 K P R Mill Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 9, Gokul Buildings, Thadagam Road, Income Tax, A.K.S. Nagar, Coimbatore 641 001. Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aacck0893N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.12.2022 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 271 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Along With Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For The Said Delay. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Petition, We Find That The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really Prevented The Assessee In Filing The 2

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 271 days. The assessee filed an affidavit along with petition for condonation of delay stating reasons for the said delay. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the petition, we find that the reasons stated by the assessee ... bonafide, which really prevented the assessee in filing the 2 I.T.A. No.1244/Chny/23 appeal in time and accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. When this appeal was taken up for hearing, by filing an application along with acknowledgement & Form 3 DTVSV

Dashrath Singh, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Behror, Behrod

18. As a result, this second mentioned appeal- ITA No

ITA 1197/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Kumar Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary (JCIT), DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

appeal was barred by limitation and the assessee had failed to furnish any ‘sufficient cause’ to explain the delay. Accordingly, the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was rejected. Although as mentioned above, the request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was rejected, Learned

Mega Venture Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-5(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3347/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 250

having competent staff to check the day to day work of the Assessee company and therefore the contention of the Assessee for condonation of delay is unconvincing and not liable to be accepted considering specifically the facts of the instant case that in spite of sending 4 notices the Assessee ... right perspective of the issues involved, hence considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to condone the delay, however, subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- in the Revenue Department within 30 days from the receipt of this order. We clarify that the Assessee shall

Vikas, Gurugram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(5), Gurugram

ITA 2623/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhvikas Vs. Income Tax Officer, 345, Behind Obc Bank Ward 4(5) Sector 17A Market, Gurgaon Sukhrali, Gurgaion Haryana Haryana – 122001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Akfpv2881F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

during the course of hearing before us today. 2. While preferring the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), no application for condonation of delay was preferred by before the First Appellate Authority, the appeal stood dismissed and hence, the instant appeal before us. 3. Under this facts and circumstances ... setting aside the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication of the appeal afresh upon considering the application for condonation of delay to be filed by him during the course of second round of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A). Such prayer made

Manju Madhusudan Dhoot L/H of Late Madhusudan Dhoot, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward 1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1920/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1919 & 1920/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

Section 144Section 250

considering the facts and circumstances; delay in filing appeal may be condoned. The Ld. DR did not seriously objected to the prayer for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. 5. We have heard the rival submissions on the issue of condonation of delay. The assessee has in the sworn ... substantial justice deserves to be preferred and after considering the averments made in the affidavit and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.” Similar were the reasons for the delay for the instant two assessment years and the same has been narrated

Manju Madhusudan Dhoot, L/H of Late Madhusudan Dhoot, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward 1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1919/PUN/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1919 & 1920/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

Section 144Section 250

Prem Samriddhi Foundation, Bundi vs. ITO Ward, Bundi

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

ITA 842/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024

Bench: The Itat For 2

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CАFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

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

ITAT for 2 ITA842/JPR/2024 PREM SAMRIDHI FOUNDATION VS ITO, WARD-BUNDI which the ld.AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay and thus prayed as under:- 1. That assessee-trust filed an appeal on 03.06.2024 against the rejection order passed by Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur ... appeal against these rejection orders before ITAT. In view of above submission you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable cause to condone the delay of 491 days and kindly remand back the case to CIT(Exemption), Jaipur. So, that proper inquiry can be conducted and substantial justice

City Managers Association Rajasthan, Jaipura vs. CIT, Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 798/JPR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 253(5)Section 5

days in filing the appeal by the assessee-association for which the authorized signatory of assessee-association has filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayer. ‘’Application for condonation of delay u/s 253(5) of the Income tax Act, 1961 read with section 5 of Limitation ... filling of appeal Hon'ble Sir/Madam, The humble assessee appellant applicant respectfully prays for the condonation of delay in the filling of appeal for the following reason: 1. City Managers Association Rajasthan is a not for profit association controlled & governed by the Government of Rajasthan and was established to promote

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Banas Builders and Developers LLP, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 269/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)

Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

same is counted from the service of the notice. The revenue has filed an application stating the reasons for delay and prayed for condonation of delay. The content of the application so filed reads as under :- 5 ITA Nos. 239 to 240 & 269-JP-2024 ACIT vs. Banas Builders ... Developers LLP, Jhalawar Subject:- Application for condonation of delay for filing of appeal u/s 254 of the Act in the case of M/s Banas Minerals Private Ltd. (PAN – AADCB0164G) for the A.Y 2013-14 (appeal No. ITA 239/JP/2024)-reg.- Kindly refer to the above mentioned subject. 2. It is respectfully

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Banas Minerals Private Limited, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 240/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)

Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

ACIT, Central Circle, Kota vs. Banas Minerals Private Limited, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 239/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)

Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

Skybridge Real Estates LLP, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 34, Kolkata

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

ITA 1849/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Skybridge Real Estates Llp Dcit, Circle -34, 24, Hemant Basu Sarani, Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 110, Mangalam-A, 5Th Floor, Room Shanti Pally, E.M. Bypass, Vs. No.507, Kolkata-700001, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acvfs7139R Assessee By : Shri N.S. Saini, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Saini, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ruchika Sharma, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 28

reason to interfere and issue notice on the main appeal. Accordingly, we are not inclined to issue notice on the application for the condonation of delay and the same and consequentially the appeal are dismissed.” 1.6 We find the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Aditya Medisales

Jai Club, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 1176/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary (JCIT), DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

limitation, having been filed after 418 days. 4. Record reveals that with the Memorandum of appeal, the assessee also filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application is accompanied by affidavit dated 06-09-2024. 5. It may be mentioned here that despite various notices ... assessee for hearing, none has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee-applicant.So, we have heard Learned DR on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 6. Learned DR has opposed the application by submitting that the assessee- applicant has failed to establish any ‘sufficient cause

Rakesh Satija, Ramgarh, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Alwar

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

ITA 1160/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary Addl.CIT

filing the appeal by the assessee for which the neither the assessee or his representative appeared nor any application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee. In this situation, the Bench adopts the lenient view for such one day delay in filing the appeal by the assessee

Aas Mohammad, Tizara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhiwadi

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

ITA 1102/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250

that there is delay of 56 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayer. ''1 In this case the Learned CIT(A) has passed the order u/s 250 of the Income

Satish Rajaji Rathod, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5404/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sucheck AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80CSection 80D

chapter VI-A.” 3. The present appeal is delayed by 105 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. In the application, the assessee submitted that the impugned order was passed by the learned CIT(A) on 02.05.2024, however, the assessee ... immediately filed the appeal on 15.06.20216 before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 30, Mumbai accompanied by an application for condonation of delay stating the above facts. 7) That the said delay is a bonafide delay and due to genuine reasons and that I had no purposeful intention

Dipa Parimal Sampat, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5301/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Bledipa Parimal Sampat, Ito 27(1)(1), 23 B Sindhu Baga A, Mumbai Vs. Tilak Road, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 400 077. Pan : Bfzps7805E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Romil K JainFor Respondent: Shri R R Makwana

Section 249(2)Section 69

challenging the order dated 05.08.2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The appeal relates to A.Y. 2017-18, thereby refusing to condone the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal. The First Appellate Authority has found that the delay of 64 days is an inordinate delay ... Authority, which the appellant sought to be condoned u/s. 249(2) of the said Act. 6. The First Appellate Authority has refused to condone the delay. Hence this appeal. 7. In so far as the delay is concerned, it is the case of the appellant that she is a housewife

Subhash Chand, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose,

ITA 2451/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued notice to the assessee on four occasions. Since there was no compliance from assessee's side, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in an ex-parte proceedings.4. A perusal of statement of facts filed before the CIT(A) reveals that apart from Subhas Chand, legal heir of deceased. Harish Chand had two more sons and the sale proceeds of agricultural land are stated to be divided among three sons of Harish Chand. However, this fact is unsubstantiated so far.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessment year 2011-12. 2 2. The appeal is time barred by three days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of application we have satisfied that delay in filing of appeal was for bonafide reasons and not on account

Rajiv Kumar, Shahjahanpur vs. ITO-1(5) Shahjahanpur-2, Shahjahanpur

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

ITA 336/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrarajiv Kumar V. Ito-1(5) 17 Rajeev Traders, Tiraha Aaykar Bhawan, Nh-24, Bajar, Powayan, Shahjahanpur- Bareilly Mod, 242401. Shahjahanpur. Pan: Aivpg8841Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(3)Section 69A

appeal.” 1A. This appeal has been filed beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of the Act. An application requesting for condonation of delay has been filed from the assessee’s side. The Ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue expressed no objection to condonation of delay. Accordingly, delay in filing