← 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bank of India, Jaipur vs. Addl.CIT(TDS), Jaipur

ITA 643/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

order of the Assessing Officer. So far as the merits of the case are concerned. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has also not condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him which was delayed by 582 days. The ld. AR of the assessee drawn our attention two reasons advanced ... harsh on us as well as on deductees also, hence we would like to pray before your honour to accept our appeal and condone the delay and oblige.” 6. The ld. CIT(A) did not consider this reason as sufficient to condonation the delay. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed

Bank of India, Jaipur vs. ITO TDS-1, Jaipur

ITA 642/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

order of the Assessing Officer. So far as the merits of the case are concerned. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has also not condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him which was delayed by 582 days. The ld. AR of the assessee drawn our attention two reasons advanced ... harsh on us as well as on deductees also, hence we would like to pray before your honour to accept our appeal and condone the delay and oblige.” 6. The ld. CIT(A) did not consider this reason as sufficient to condonation the delay. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed

Bank of India, Jaipur vs. ITO TDS-1, Jaipur

ITA 641/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

order of the Assessing Officer. So far as the merits of the case are concerned. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has also not condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him which was delayed by 582 days. The ld. AR of the assessee drawn our attention two reasons advanced ... harsh on us as well as on deductees also, hence we would like to pray before your honour to accept our appeal and condone the delay and oblige.” 6. The ld. CIT(A) did not consider this reason as sufficient to condonation the delay. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed

Bank of India, Jaipur vs. Addl.CIT(TDS), Jaipur

ITA 640/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

order of the Assessing Officer. So far as the merits of the case are concerned. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has also not condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him which was delayed by 582 days. The ld. AR of the assessee drawn our attention two reasons advanced ... harsh on us as well as on deductees also, hence we would like to pray before your honour to accept our appeal and condone the delay and oblige.” 6. The ld. CIT(A) did not consider this reason as sufficient to condonation the delay. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed

Bank of India, Jaipur vs. ITO TDS-1, Jaipur

ITA 639/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

order of the Assessing Officer. So far as the merits of the case are concerned. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has also not condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him which was delayed by 582 days. The ld. AR of the assessee drawn our attention two reasons advanced ... harsh on us as well as on deductees also, hence we would like to pray before your honour to accept our appeal and condone the delay and oblige.” 6. The ld. CIT(A) did not consider this reason as sufficient to condonation the delay. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed

Singhania University, Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jaipur

ITA 312/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Bhardwaj, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 250

seen that the appellant has not filed Form no. 35 properly, statement of Facts, Grounds of appeal, Application for condonation of delay, Particulars of payment of Appeal Fee. In view of this, the appellant was issued a defective notice on 11/07/2023 requesting to rectify the defects. Screen shot of defect

Sri Anjaneya Vividoddesha Souharda Sahakari Niyamita, Harihara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davanagere

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

ITA 1197/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ramanagowdar S Gowda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel

days in filing the present appeal before us. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of Bench towards the affidavit cum condonation of delay application and contended that there was some bona-fide reason behind the non-filing of appeal in due course. Ld DR strongly opposed the condonation prayer ... appeal. To meet the ends of justice, it is humbly prayed that judicious view may kindly be taken while considering the condonation of delay. 6. That the Deponent preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal and that the appeal is filed with a delay of 438 days which

M/S. Byrambada Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Kodagu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mysuru

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

ITA 1145/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vishal S Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR

assessee in causing the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. 2.3 On the contrary, the Ld.DR though vehemently opposed the condonation of delay was of the opinion that the issue should be decided on merits. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light ... establish any such intention has been filed by the revenue before this Tribunal. In our opinion there is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support

Snehasadan, Mumbai vs. Deputy Direcotr of Income Tax, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2225/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

rule and procedure that is prescribed in the Income Tax Act and Income Tax Rules. The appellant has stated that an application of condonation of delay is filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai. The appellate authority does not have the jurisdiction to condone the delay of filing ... assessee is free to file the said Form 10B online and/or approach the CIT-(Exemption), Ahmedabad after filing Form 10B electronically and to condone the delay in 5 ITA.No.2225/MUM./2024 accordance with the delegated powers vested u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act. Such a power u/s.119

Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Koloshi Hadpid, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, Centralized Proceesing Centre CPC, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2142/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

facts and under the orcumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CTT(A) NFPAC, erred in not deciding the case by condoning the delay in filling of form 108 by the appellant Without prejudice to the above, On the facts and under the circumstances of the case ... CITA) NFAC, ought to have remanded back the matter to the AO directing him to pass order after the receipt of order for condonation of delay by Principal CIT (Exemption). The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or to delete the above ground of appeal, if necessary, before

Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Koloshi Hadpid, Mumabi vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2141/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

facts and under the orcumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CTT(A) NFPAC, erred in not deciding the case by condoning the delay in filling of form 108 by the appellant Without prejudice to the above, On the facts and under the circumstances of the case ... CITA) NFAC, ought to have remanded back the matter to the AO directing him to pass order after the receipt of order for condonation of delay by Principal CIT (Exemption). The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or to delete the above ground of appeal, if necessary, before

Farees Ahmed Khalil Ahmed, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-23(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1682/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. K GopalFor Respondent: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR

Appellant as barred by limitation by refusing to condone the filed by the Appellant as barred by limitation by refusing to condone the delay of 278 days. The Ld. NFAC failed to appreciate that the delay in filing delay of 278 days. The Ld. NFAC failed to appreciate that ... counsel for the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 278 days in filing appeal Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 278 days in filing appeal

Dinesh Tarachand Mehta, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-30, Mumbai

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

ITA 4591/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Mr. Nikhil JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

DINESH TARACHAND MEHTA 2. Appeals have been filed with delay of 1939 days. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay and has submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 07.09.2018 which was sent online was not in his knowledge. The earlier CA, Shri Navaratnamal ... Shri Navratnamal Ji Surana CA in support of his contentions. 3. In view of the facts submitted by the Ld. AR, we hereby condone the delay in filing of appeals and proceed to decide issues involved on merits. 4. The only issue which is common in both years is regarding

Dinesh Tarakchand Mehta, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-30, Mumbai

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

ITA 4590/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Mr. Nikhil JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

DINESH TARACHAND MEHTA 2. Appeals have been filed with delay of 1939 days. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay and has submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 07.09.2018 which was sent online was not in his knowledge. The earlier CA, Shri Navaratnamal ... Shri Navratnamal Ji Surana CA in support of his contentions. 3. In view of the facts submitted by the Ld. AR, we hereby condone the delay in filing of appeals and proceed to decide issues involved on merits. 4. The only issue which is common in both years is regarding

Samarpan, Rohtak vs. ITO Exemptions, Rohtak

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1152/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

filing appeal were considered not tenable by the ld. CIT(A) and hence the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by not condoning the delay. 6. For the Asst Year 2017-18, the return of income was filed by the assessee on 28.10.2017 declaring Nil income after claiming exemption ... adduced for Asst Year 2015-16, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed this appeal for the Asst Year 2017-18 by not condoning the delay. 7. At the outset, we find that the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act stood passed in the case of the assessee

Samarpan, Rohtak vs. ITO Exemptions, Rohtak

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1151/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

filing appeal were considered not tenable by the ld. CIT(A) and hence the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by not condoning the delay. 6. For the Asst Year 2017-18, the return of income was filed by the assessee on 28.10.2017 declaring Nil income after claiming exemption ... adduced for Asst Year 2015-16, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed this appeal for the Asst Year 2017-18 by not condoning the delay. 7. At the outset, we find that the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act stood passed in the case of the assessee

Chowdry Associates, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7718/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 28

requirement to further add it to the income.” 3. The appeal is late by 28 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. A perusal of the same shows that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in not filing the appeal on time. Considering the same

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Gonda vs. M/S B.D Agricare Pvivate Limited, Basti

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 508/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2013-14 The Acit V. M/S B.D. Agricare Private Limited Circle, Gonda Pursia Gaukhor Basti Pan:Aaecb6486E (Appellant) (Respondent) C. O. No.12/Lkw/2018 [In Ita No.508/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S B.D. Agricare Private Limited V. The Acit Pursia Gaukhor Circle, Gonda Basti Pan:Aaecb6486E (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) Department By: Shri Sanjeeve Krishna Sharma, D.R. Assessee By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 16 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 07 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeeve Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 268ASection 268A(1)

also filed Cross Objection. 2. There is delay in filing of Cross Objection by the assessee and the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. The ld. D.R. has no objection to the prayer made by the ITA No.508/LKW/2017 & C. O. No.12/LKW/2018 Page 2 of 3 assessee for condonation ... delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the Cross Objection for hearing. 3. During the course of hearing before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee has furnished before us the copy of order dated 29.3.2016 issued by the ACIT, Range-2, Gorakhpur under section

Nalinkumar Ratilal Patel, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 621/AHD/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 69

assessee has raised the following ground of appeal :- “1. The Ld. CIT erred on facts and in law in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal despite explaining the reasons and not adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits. The Ld. CIT erred on facts ... authority letter of any Tax Professional in his case. It appears that the assessee is not aware about the filing of the condonation of delay application in the present case. 5. From the perusal of the records, it appears that the assessee has requested to remand back this matter

Sunita Mohan Patil, Nashik vs. ACIT 1, Nashik

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

ITA 939/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Tripathi

days had occurred in filing the appeal. The delay was due to genuine reasons and not intentional. It is, therefore, prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2 We have gone through the averments made in the condonation petition and find it relevant to refer to the following ... Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT, 389 ITR 250 (Bom.) 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 the Court