← All Phrases

“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

Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 8(1) - Ltu - II, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 362/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.362/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., The Dcit, No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Non Corporate Circle-8(1), Guindy, Chennai-600 032. Ltu-Ii, Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca 4651 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 32Section 35

Revenue’s appeal (ITA No.484/Chny/2024) i.e. it is delayed by ‘10’ days, for which, the DCIT has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay, and the Ld.Counsel of the assessee didn’t raise any serious objection. Consequently, the delay of ‘10’ days in filing of the appeal stands condoned

Shri. Kishore Tarachand, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 1422/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri. Kishore Tarachand, Vs. Ito, No.25, Prestige Lake Vista, Ward – 4(2)(4), Varthur Main Road, Bengaluru. Ramagondanahalli Whitefield, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Adjpt 6345 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Richa, Ca. Revenue By : Smt. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Richa, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Assessment Year is 2013-14. 2. There is a delay of 43 days in filing this appeal. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for the belated filing of this appeal. On perusal of the reasons stated for late filing of the appeal ... view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the matter on merits. Page 2 of 6 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee

Killick Nixon Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 10(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4016/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : Shri.K.Gopal & Ms Neha Paranjpe.AR Shr
Section 115Section 143(1)Section 144Section 271Section 41(1)Section 69Section 69A

delay of 136 days in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, 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

Chandrakant Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3874/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2011-12
Section 250Section 250(6)

24/04/2019 against the assessment order passed on 21.12.2018 by a delay of about 201 days. The reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay are that the assessee is an NRI since 2009. Assessee’s CA could not follow the matter due to pre occupations. The turmoil caused

Samir Arvind Thakker, Chembur vs. DCIT Circle-27(3), Mumabi, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2817/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojary, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, Sr. D/R
Section 69C

assessee reads as under :- “1. The Learned CIT(A) erred on facts, in law and under the circumstances in failing to condone the delay in filing the appeal on frivolous and vexations grounds. 2. The Learned CIT(A) further erred in failing to take notice of grounds on which ... assessee filed an affidavit stating the facts which were the cause for the delay. Though the ld. CIT(A) considered the request for condonation of delay but did not accept the contentions of the assessee and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. 3.1. Before us, the ld. Counsel

Shubhsita Foundation, Thane vs. DCIT Exemption, Circle, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant trust are partly allowed

ITA 1285/PUN/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1285 & 1283/Pun/2024

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12ASection 80G(5)

outset, we find the appeals are time barred by limitation by 193 days before the Tribunal. The appellant trust filed petitions praying for condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of wrong advice given by the Tax Consultant. We have gone the appeal with ... delay, the delay deserves to be condoned. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that these are fit cases to condone the delay. We therefore condone the delay of 193 days in filing the appeals and admit the appeals, proceed for adjudication of appeals. 3. We heard the rival submissions

Shubhsita Foundation, Thane vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant trust are partly allowed

ITA 1283/PUN/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1285 & 1283/Pun/2024

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12ASection 80G(5)

outset, we find the appeals are time barred by limitation by 193 days before the Tribunal. The appellant trust filed petitions praying for condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of wrong advice given by the Tax Consultant. We have gone the appeal with ... delay, the delay deserves to be condoned. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that these are fit cases to condone the delay. We therefore condone the delay of 193 days in filing the appeals and admit the appeals, proceed for adjudication of appeals. 3. We heard the rival submissions

Minerva Natya Sanskriti Charcha Kendra, Beadon Street, Kolkata vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle37 Kolkata, Government Place

In the result, appeal of the assessee isallowed for statistical purposes

ITA 632/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld A.O. by post for send the copy of the Assessment Order that your assessee can submit the Appeal Petition against the demand notice. The Ld. A.O without mailing the said document handed over the Assessment Order hardcopy to your assessee authorized representative on 23 03.2021 and on orafter received the Assessment Order your appellant filed the appeal petition through online dtd. 19.04.2021.

Section 143(3)Section 250

quashed 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) error is not condoning the delay, and dismissing the appeal in gross negligence of provision of Sec 3(1)(b) of the taxation and other laws by (relaxation and amended ... assessment order on 23-03-2021 which is noted in the form 35 due to above difference date your appellant submitted actual condonation for delay filling of the appeal before the Ld. CIT But Ld. CIT without material of fact for delay passed the order that the appeal is rejected

Samrat Kumar Ghosh, Darjeeling vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1495/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1495/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Samrat Kumar Ghosh……..…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant Tumbe Jote, Matigara, Rabin Sen Colony, Darjeeling, W.B – 734010. [Pan: Aqepg2359J] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Siliguri.......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 24, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Lower Authorities In Making Addition Of Rs.55,53,171/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credits. 3. The Assessing Officer Found That There Were Cash Credits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee. However, The Assessee Could Not Give Satisfactory Explanation Regarding The Source Of The Said Cash Credits. Even The Assessee Did Not Reply To The Various Notices Issued By The Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, Therefore, Made The Impugned

Section 144Section 250

appearance on behalf of the assessee. There is a delay of 419 days in filing the present appeal. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the averments made in the said application, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 6. The assessee

Bharat Tyagi, Dholpur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 940/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

days in filing the respective appeals by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an application dated 01-07-2024 for condonation of delay mentioning therein that ‘’on 16-11-2024 my newborn baby passed away. This unexpected and heartbreaking event left my family and me in deep shock ... wife required my constant presence and attention, making it extremely difficult to focus on any other responsibilities.’’ Thus the assessee prayed for condonation of delay in filing the above appeals. The assessee has also filed an affidavit deposing the above facts in his case. 2.2 On the other hand

Shashikant Krishna Shetty, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2), Kalyan

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

ITA 1879/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh VyasFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT, DR
Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 69

following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CITIA) erred in denied the condonation of delay of 103 days in filling appeal before CIT(A) as appellant prevented from reasonable cause and the reasons were beyond his control ... before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merit and dismissed the same by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel vehemently submitted that assessee was educated upto 12th standard

Ajinkyatara Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Vashi Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1231/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Sushant N. AlmeFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has failed to consider the bonafide submission made by the Appellant Society and summarily rejected the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income ... against the above Assessment Order. Since the appeal was filed after a delay of 131 days, the Appellant filed application seeking condonation of delay before CIT(A) which was accompanied by the affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The CIT(A), not being convinced, declined to condone delay

Harde vs. Ingh P. Chudasama Prop. Bhavani Transport, Ahmedabadvs.the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 200/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 200/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2017-2018 Shri Hardevsingh P Chudasama, The Principal Prop. Bhavani Transport, बनामVs Commissioner Of . Opp. Jain Temple, Income Tax-3, Dholera, Ahmedabad. Dhandhuka, Ahmedabad-382455. Pan: Adgpc0026R

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri H Phani Raju, CIT. DR
Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234ASection 263Section 68Section 69A

expertise subject and therefore, the assessee should not be penalized and the delay should be condoned. 6. The Ld.DR opposed the condonation of delay. The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee received the notice but has not taken cognizance of the same and therefore the delay should not be condoned. Asst

The Bhandara District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Bhandara vs. ACIT Circle-2, Nagpur

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

ITA 143/NAG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Saket BhattedFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salonkhe

physical delivery was specifically asked to avoid passing of such arbitrary ex–parte orders. Accordingly, the learned A.R. prayed before the Bench for condoning the delay in filing the subject appeals. 3. After considering the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative and averments made in the applications for condonation ... filing the appeals belatedly and we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals is due to reasonable cause. Consequently, we condone the delay in filing the appeals for A.Y. 2014–15 and 2021–12 and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 4. During the course of hearing

The Bhandara District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Bhandara vs. ACIT Circle-2, Nagpur

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

ITA 142/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Saket BhattedFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salonkhe

physical delivery was specifically asked to avoid passing of such arbitrary ex–parte orders. Accordingly, the learned A.R. prayed before the Bench for condoning the delay in filing the subject appeals. 3. After considering the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative and averments made in the applications for condonation ... filing the appeals belatedly and we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals is due to reasonable cause. Consequently, we condone the delay in filing the appeals for A.Y. 2014–15 and 2021–12 and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 4. During the course of hearing

The Bhandara District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Bhandra vs. ACIT Circle -2, Nagpur

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

ITA 141/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Saket BhattedFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salonkhe

physical delivery was specifically asked to avoid passing of such arbitrary ex–parte orders. Accordingly, the learned A.R. prayed before the Bench for condoning the delay in filing the subject appeals. 3. After considering the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative and averments made in the applications for condonation ... filing the appeals belatedly and we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals is due to reasonable cause. Consequently, we condone the delay in filing the appeals for A.Y. 2014–15 and 2021–12 and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 4. During the course of hearing

Md Afscs Limited Poodur, Rangareddy vs. ITO., Ward-11(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 707/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 707/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Md Afscs Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Poodur Ward 11 (2) Pan:Aaeam2357D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Smt. Ambika, S. Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Smt. Ambika, S. CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80P

first appellate authority and the appeal filed by the appellant was delayed by 7 days. The appellant has filed the petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons therein. As per the assessee, the Managing Director of the assessee society Mr. Sanjeeva Rao who is SBI Employee was on deputation ... delay in filing of the appeal, rejected the reasons given by the assessee and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Page

Vanishree Chennuru, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-2, Warangal

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

ITA 578/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.578/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vanishree Chennuru Income Tax Officer Warangal Vs. Ward 2 [Pan : Amcpc2961N] Warangal अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri K.Hemalatha, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/08/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 23/09/2024

For Appellant: Shri K.Hemalatha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, the assessee preferred this appeal with the delay of 212 days. Assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay stating that the assessee came to know about the ex-parte order passed by the learned CIT(A) only when the assessee received ... before the Tribunal. The assessee submitted that he has no malafide intention to file the appeal belatedly, hence, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice. 2. We have perused the condonation petition filed by the assessee and find that there

Geeta Bai, Bhopal vs. ITO 4(4), Bhopal

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 305/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54F

days for the Assessment Year 2014- 15 and 23 days for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee has filed separate applications for condonation of delay which are supported by 3 separate affidavits of the assessee one for each year. 2.1 We have heard the Ld. AR as well

Geeta Bai, Berasia vs. ITO 4(4), Bhopal

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 304/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54F

days for the Assessment Year 2014- 15 and 23 days for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee has filed separate applications for condonation of delay which are supported by 3 separate affidavits of the assessee one for each year. 2.1 We have heard the Ld. AR as well