“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

Hillside Educational Trust, Coimbatore vs. CIT Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 886/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)

appeal was actually filed on 02.04.2024 and thereby, there is a delay of 50 days. The assessee filed condonation petition for condoning the delay of 50 days stating the following reason:- “In this regard, it is submitted that the Appellant Trust filed Form 10AB on 05.06.2023 seeking registration ... under consideration in the interest of justice for adjudicating the issues on merits.” When this was confronted to ld. Senior DR, he opposed condonation of delay. After hearing rival contentions and going through the ITA No.886 /Chny/2024 condonation petition, we find the reason stated by assessee as reasonable and sufficient

Selvamuthu Pravinkumar, Salem vs. ITO Ward 1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 871/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri G.Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)

before 11.11.2023 but appeal was actually filed on 01.04.2024 and thereby, there is a delay of 141 days. The assessee filed affidavit for condonation of delay of 138 days stating the reason that he was sick and could not attend to his normal work diligently from October, 2023 till March ... hearing rival contentions and going through the condonation petition, we find the reason stated by assessee as reasonable and sufficient and hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention to Ground Nos. 1 & 2, which reads

Aa 294 Arulvadi Primary Agricultural Coop Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 491/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 489, 490 & 491/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Aa 294 Arulvadi Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Op Credit Vs. Ward 2(1), Society Ltd., Erode. Arulvadi, Sathyamangalam, Erode – 638 461. Pan: Aacaa 1572C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.A.Vijayalakshmi, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms.A.Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

attention to Ground No.3 raised by assessee, which is common in all the three appeals, regarding the order of CIT(A)-NFAC not condoning the delay in filing of appeals and dismissing the appeals. Since the assessee has raised common ground in all three appeals and all these three appeals ... against the order of CIT(A)-NFAC dismissing the appeals as un-admitted and not condoning the delay, we are reproducing the said common ground No.3 in all the three appeals:- 3. Reasonable cause of delay in filing Appeal with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income

Aa 294 Arulvadi Primary Agricultural Coop Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 490/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms.A.Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Aa 294 Arulvadi Primary Agricultural Coop Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 489/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms.A.Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Neethivanan Jeyasudha, Chennai vs. Addl JCIT (A), Jodhpur

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

ITA 449/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.449/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Neethivanan Jeyasudha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No.P3, Old No.P13, Non Corporate Ward 19(4) 19Th Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 040. [Pan: Aplpj5195D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Varadarajan, Cma ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Mukundan, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. Varadarajan, CMAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Mukundan, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

Income tax portal due to technical issues and the same issue was raised and reply for same were sent via email requesting for condone the delay and accept my appeal but the same was rejected. The department has passed an order ... original section 143(1) dated 28-12-2022, since the rectification order was same as the original order, I kindly request you to condone the delay of filing the 23 and do the needful at the earliest." However, the CIT(A) observed that the appeal filed is not in conformity

Prakash Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Alwar

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

ITA 184/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 144Section 147Section 148

Sharma vs. ITO “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Learned CIT(A) has erred in not allowing condonation of delay in the light of Supreme Court judgment in Suo Motu Writ Petition (civil) No(s). 3/2020 had extended period of limitation ... delay. The Appellate authority has to examine whether the sufficient cause 4 Prakash Sharma vs. ITO has been shown by the appellant for condoning the delay and whether such cause is acceptable or not. Even though substantial justice should not be defeated by technicalities but that does not mean that

Suva Lal Paharia, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Jaipur

ITA 157/JPR/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 144Section 147Section 5

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 and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit :- "1. In this connection it is submitted that the applicant is a State ... Land & Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has advocated for a very liberal approach while considering a case for condonation of delay. The following observations of the Hon'ble Court are notable: "The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section

Idrish, Matawas vs. ITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, Income Tax

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

ITA 818/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma (Adv.) (Th.V.C.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra(Addl.CIT)

Section 147Section 2(14)Section 234A

days may kindly be condoned. 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR fairly not objected to assessee’s application for condonation of delay and prayed that Court may decide the issue as deem fit in the interest of justice. 2.3 We have heard both the parties and perused ... materials available on record. The Bench Noted that the assessee for condonation of delay of 05 days has merit and we concur with the submission of the assessee. Thus the delay of 05 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision

Secondary School Education Society Hegdekatta, Sirsi vs. Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward-1, Mangalore

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

ITA 897/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavsecondary School Education The Income Tax Officer Society Hegdekatta (Exemption), Ward -1 1. Shri Gajanan Sec. School Albuquerque House Vs. Hegdekatta Sirsi Attavar Road, Attavar Sirsi 581403 Karnataka Mangalore 575001 Pan – Aanas3479D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prabhath P. Bhat, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcti-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S250/2003-24/1063671684(1) Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad (Cit(A)) Dated 30.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Charitable Trust Registered With Income Tax Department Under Section 12Aa & Also Got 80G Of The Act. The Main Object Of The Assessee Is To Provide Education To Aspirants From Primary Level To Secondary Level. For The Impugned Year, Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically On 07.01.2022, Declaring Gross Total

For Appellant: Shri Prabhath P. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCTI-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

that the appellant being a trust doing services in education in rural areas may be granted benefits of section 11 and 12A after condoning the delay in filing Form 10B report. The assessee also relied upon certain judgements of various benches of the ITAT. However, the learned CIT(A) dismissed ... assessee has e-verified Form 10B on 08.09.2022. It is pertinent to note here that the assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay vis-a-vis filing of Form 10B before the CIT in term of CBDT circular no 19/2021 dated 03.11.2020. The main contention

M/S. Multi Tek Interior Solutions, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 894/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 234Section 250Section 40Section 44A

circumstances of the Appellant's case, may be quashed. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal preferred by the appellant without properly appreciating the facts and reasons leading to delay in filing the appeal, by not appreciating ... control of the appellant, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal and thereby ought to have adjudicated the grounds raised by the appellant in the interest

Shri. Subramanyam Vijai, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 877/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri G. Satyanarayana, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 143(3)

preoccupied in their professional assignments and were not available to render the services. By considering above reason, I pray before your goodself to condone the delay and accept the appeal.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay by observing as under: “5.1.1 The appellant, serving ... sufficient merit. Subramanyam Vijai, Bangalore Page 3 of 5 5.2 The appellant even after filing of appeal with delay has not filed any condonation of delay application and affidavit, aiming to justify the significant delay of more than 200 days. Which shows that the appellant has not taken the necessary

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 and Tps, Bagalkot vs. Jyoti Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Badami

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

ITA 838/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh V. Mudhol, IncomeFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 148ASection 51Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

CBDT circulars issued. He thus prayed for the delay to be condoned and appeal heard on merits. The Ld.AR though opposed for condonation of delay, could not controvert the reasons submitted for delay. Page 4 of 7 We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light ... records placed before us. In our opinion there is a sufficient and reasonable cause to condone 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 of his contentions. 3.2 Considering the circumstances

J C R Drillsol Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 871/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji reported in [1987] 167 ITR 471(SC) and prayed for consideration of the merits by condoning the delay. The Ld.DR though vehemently opposed the condonation of delay before Ld.CIT(A), submitted that assessee continues to be a non- performing asset ... appeals filed before the Ld.CIT(A). 8. On examining whether the reason stated by the assessee in condonation petitions are sufficient to condone the delay and there exists sufficient cause for not presenting the appeals within the period of limitation under the statute, the assessee must show that

J C R Drillsol Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4 (1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 870/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Indira Commodities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4454/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kiran S. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri H M Bhatt

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(2)

Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant submitted that the present appeal was filed after a delay of 314 days in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal it has been stated as under: “1. The order of learned CIT (A) for the year in reference seems ... second week of October, 2023. 3. In the factual matrix set out above, the Appellant prays that Your Honours may kindly condone the delay in filing the Appeal and may kindly admit the appeal and oblige.” 4. We have taken note of the explanation by the Appellant for explaining

Mohd. Sadiq Safi Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-23(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4158/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhrimohd. Sadiq Safi Khan Vs. Ito-23(2)(3) Room No. 71, Razzak Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Chawl, Kherwadi, Bandra Mumbai-400012. East, Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aahpk4751D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

assessee checked the status on e-filing portal, that the appellate order came to his knowledge. In view of these circumstances, request for condonation of delay of 290 days has been made. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. In view of the facts submitted by the assessee, the delay

DCIT, Circle, Patiala vs. M/S the British Co. Ed. School, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

substantial question of law involved, appeal should not be rejected on technical ground of delay. The High Court in this case condoned a delay of 314 days in filing appeal by Revenue. 4.6 In view of the above facts, it was submitted that delay of 536 days may kindly ... perused the material available on the record. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT Vs. M/s. Organon India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while condoning the delay of 314 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue has held that where the Court is required to examine as to whether

Khengarsinh Jadavbhai Gohel, Petlad vs. ITO Petlad, Petlad

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

ITA 579/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 69A

belatedly by the assessee with Tribunal beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3) , by 33 days. The assessee has filed the application for condonation of delay praying for condoning the delay of 33 days in filing this appeal beyond the prescribed time u/s. 253(3) of the Act. The assessee ... that the assessee came to know of the order dated 28.12.2023 only on 31.01.2024. The ld. Departmental Representative has no objection to the condonation of delay in filing this appeal belatedly, and he left the matter to the Bench to decide about the condonation of delay. After considering the material

Candid Industries Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 87/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 271(1)(b)

However, there was delay of 178 days in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) without condoning the delay in filing the appeals, dismissed the appeals of the assessee. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before ... contending that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed the appeals without appreciating the merits of the case. The Ld. AR submitted that the appeals before Ld.CIT(A) could not be filed in time due to ill- health of the Accountant. Further