← 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

Ravindra Awasthi, Indore vs. ITO 2(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose, subject

ITA 191/IND/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 250(6)Section 253(5)

informed that the present appeal is delayed by 412 days and therefore time-barred. The assessee has filed an application/ affidavit for condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference: 5 MADHYA Pp - DH 541888 KOa Se! ‘ore Hon’ble ITAT Indore Bench, Indore ... Affidavit for condonation of Delay of 412 Days in ITA No. oO} 191/Ind/2025 in the matter of Ravindra Awasthi for AY 2010-11 It is submitted as under — s 1) Thatassessee is a semi literate farmer living in a village and 4 not conversant with income tax laws.That impugned order

Khojema Bohra, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the grounds raised on this issue stands "Dismissed"

ITA 812/IND/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jan 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshikhojema Bohra

Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Mr. Balu Sinnappa Waghmode, Vatfali Nandiwale Vasti vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Solapur

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Dismissed

ITA 2804/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2804/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Aakash Parakh
Section 147Section 148Section 250

Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 56 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay giving the reasons. Precisely, the main reason for the delay is that the income tax matters are being looked after by the assessee ... find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeal within the time limit specified under the Act. I therefore condone the delay of 56 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there

Jj709 Eguvarpalayam Paccs, Thiruvallur vs. ITO, Ward-1., Thiruvallur

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

ITA 3216/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3216/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri B. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

delay of 73 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The Secretary of the assessee trust has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with the supporting affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. On perusal of the reasons stated in the affidavit ... 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 appeal on merits. 3. At the very out, we notice that the assessee has filed a legal ground

S 1284 Thathaiyangarpatti Paccs Ltd., Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

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

ITA 3173/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3173/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri A. Tamilamudan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The Secretary of the assessee trust has filed an affidavit along with petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. On perusal of the reasons stated in the affidavit, we are of the view that ... 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 appeal on merits. 3. At the very out, we notice that the assessee has filed a legal ground (Ground No.2) challenging

Salma Sadiq Kantharia, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward 41(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7403/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishsalma Sadiq Kantharia Ito-Ward 41(1)(4) A/06, 1St Floor, Shamsuddin Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, C41-43, Andheri Kurla Road, Jari Mari Kurla, Avenue 3, Near Videsh Bhavan, Mumbai-400 072 Vs. G Block, Bkc, Gilban Area, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra E, Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Andpk 5832 A (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Piyush Chhajed & Shri Ayush Chhajed Respondent By : Shri Swapnil Choudhari Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 27.05.2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2021-22. 2. Before We Proceed To Deal With The Appeal, We Notice That There Is A Delay Of 471 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Assessee Has Sought Condonation Of Delay By Furnishing An Affidavit, Explaining The Reason For Delay. It Is The Case Of The Assessee That In The Appeal Memo, In Form No. 35, The Address Of Communication Was That Of Assessee’S Tax Consultant, Ca Niranjan R Shah. However, Being An Elderly Person, Suffering From Prolonged Illness

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed &For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari

deal with the appeal, we notice that there is a delay of 471 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has sought condonation of delay by furnishing an Affidavit, explaining the reason for delay. It is the case of the assessee that in the appeal memo, in Form ... only went unrepresented before the first appellate authority, but there was delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, he requested for condonation of delay. 3. Having considered rival submissions and perused the affidavit of the assessee and the other materials on record, we are convinced that the delay

Apurva Mukesh Thakkar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(2)(1) Mumbai, Kautiliya Bhavan

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

ITA 6367/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarapurva Mukesh Ito Ward 41 Thakkar (2)(1) Mumbai 11 Dr Rp Road & Ns Vs. Room No. 234 Mataji Bungalow Bldg Kautilya Bhavan Cross Road Near City C41 To C43 Block Bank Atm Mumbai Bkc Bandra East 400080 - Mumbai Mumbai 400051, Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Adspt8293K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shriparth J. Bhatt Revenue By Shrisurendra Mohan (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250

arising out of the assessment order dated 22.12.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Condonation of Delay 2. The Registry has reported a delay of 494 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation ... have been made. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned Departmental Representative has fairly stated that he has no objection to the condonation of delay. 6. It is well settled that while considering an application for condonation of delay, the expression “sufficient cause” fide and supported by an affidavit

DCIT Central Circle -28 New Delhi, New Delhi vs. M/S Rameshwar Dayal Educational Trust, Delhi

The appeals are hereby dismissed on account of low tax effect

ITA 6356/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Smt Renu Jauhri, Hon'Bledcit Cc-28 Delhi (Appellant) Vs M/S Rameshwar Dayal Educational Trust B-385, 2Nd Floor, Nirman Vihar, New Delhi- 92 (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatr8426M

For Appellant: Shri NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 250

time-barred by 08 days. An application for condonation has been filed by the revenue. After considering the reasons stated therein, we hereby condone the delay of 8 days as the same is on account of bonafide reasons. 3. At the outset, it is noted that the tax effect involved

Manjinder Kaur Chaniana, Nagpur vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

ITA 6345/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Arora, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 40

NFAC/2015- 16/10395203. 2. At the threshold, it is noted that the appeal is time-barred by 99 days. Affidavit in support of condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee. It has been submitted that the assessee was suffering from health issues and therefore could not file the appeal

Bhanwarlal Pareek, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4410/DEL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

hereinafter referred to as, “Act”). 2. At the threshold, it is noted that the appeal is time-barred by 46 days. Application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit has been filed by the assessee. It has been submitted therein that the assessee did not receive any alert about

Myth Media Solution Private Limited, Noida, Uttar Pradesh vs. AO, Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Noida, U.P

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

ITA 2280/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Kumar Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Arora, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 37(1)

threshold, it is noted that the appeal is time-barred by 360 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay submitting that the 1 | P a g e 2280_DEL_2025_Myth Media Solution Pvt Ltd vs AO order sent by registered mail ... guidance to the assessee. Hence, the delay was unintentional and due to bonafide reasons. After hearing both the parties, we are inclined to condone the delay holding it to be due to genuine reasons. 3. The assessee has raised several grounds of appeal which are reproduced below: “1. Erroneous Upholding

Smt. Madhu Gupta, U.S.Nagar vs. Pr.CIT, Bareilly

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 136/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Prashant Kacker, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

before the NFAC and the delay caused due to the ignorance of the Assessee on the tax law and procedure, thus sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal. 2 Smt. Madhu Gupta 3. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause ... perused the material available on record on the issue of delay in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee in the application for condonation of delay, contended that she is an illiterate, does not have the knowledge of the tax law. Further submitted that the Assessee had filed Appeal before

Harcharan Singh, Baghat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Srinagar

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

ITA 21/ASR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 21/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Harcharan Singh, Baghat Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Barzulla Crossing Arinagar, Srinagar. Jammu & Kashmir. [Pan:-Bpfps0272H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None. Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026

Section 144Section 250

from the order of AO, ITO, Ward -1(3), Srinagar, passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, vide order dated 03.12.2019. 2. Condonation of delay: This appeal is filed belatedly by 123 (one hundred twenty three) days and the assessee has prayed for condonation of delay along I.T.A ... enclosed medical papers, we are of the opinion that sufficient reasons are shown by the assessee explaining the delay and as such we condone the delay and admit the same for hearing on merits. 3. The assessee has taken five grounds of appeal in form 36, relating to the addition

Rajeshbhai Savjibhai Amrutiya, Morbi vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Morbi

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

ITA 709/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Modi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadab, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250

through the reasons of delay, and the sufficient cause explained by the assessee. The learned Counsel adverted our attention to the reasons for condonation of delay before the ld.CIT(A) and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 706 days and 370 days, respectively before learned ... other hand, learned DR for the revenue, opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. A perusal of the reasons and sufficient cause explained by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, gives us an impression of existence of mitigating circumstances to enable us to exercise our discretion

Rajeshbhai Savjibhai Amrutiya, Morbi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Morbi

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

ITA 708/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Modi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadab, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250

through the reasons of delay, and the sufficient cause explained by the assessee. The learned Counsel adverted our attention to the reasons for condonation of delay before the ld.CIT(A) and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 706 days and 370 days, respectively before learned ... other hand, learned DR for the revenue, opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. A perusal of the reasons and sufficient cause explained by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, gives us an impression of existence of mitigating circumstances to enable us to exercise our discretion

Amar Nath Singh, Ara vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 460/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: The Itat. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Given Explanation Which Is As Under:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(5)

assessee has given explanation which is as under: 2 Amar Nath Singh “I, Amar Nath Singh, most respectfully submit the present application seeking condonation of delay of 7 (seven) days in filing the appeal against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) under Section [insert relevant section ... Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), wherein it has been held that a liberal approach is to be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay so as to advance the cause of substantial justice. 6. It is further submitted that no prejudice or loss shall be caused

Vaibhav Mittal, Jaipur vs. DCIT/ACIT 4(1), Ind, Indore

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 582/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 69A

considered assessee’s appeal as having been filed belatedly against assessment-order dated 25.11.2019. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay to CIT(A) accepting that the time-limit to file appeal was 24.12.2019 but he was unable to file appeal within time as his earlier tax consultant ... Page 4 of 8 Vaibhav Mittal ITA No. 582/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13 dated 23/03/2023 had dismissed the appeal of the appellant while rejecting condonation of delay application of the appellant while proclaiming that limitation date for filing of appeal was 24/12/2019. Subsequently, appellant had made rectification application on 17/10/2023 against

Oneel Verma, Nashik vs. ITO-5(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 394/IND/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

without giving deduction for the indexed cost of acquisition amounting to Rs. 22,80,700/- for F.Y 2008-09. The Application for condonation of delay of 65 days in filing of the present appeal.: 3. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 65 days in filing ... suggest that the delay was deliberate or intentional. In view of the settled principle that procedural delays should not defeat substantial justice, we condone the delay of 65 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication in the interest of justice. On Merits: 4. The brief facts

Virendra Kumar Namdev, Indore vs. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

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

ITA 254/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R
Section 144BSection 147

assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 8. Application for condonation of delay of 218 days in filing of the present appeal: 9. Before us, the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay of 218 days ... being dismissed on technical grounds of limitation. 12. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the contents of the application for condonation of delay and submitted that due to the aforesaid circumstances, the assessee could not get an effective opportunity of hearing to present his case on merits

Indrajeet Suresh Magar, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

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

ITA 774/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.774/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vs Ito, Ward Indrajeet Suresh Magar, 100, Saroj, Niwas, Ruikar 2(1), Kolhapur Colony, Kolhapur-416003 Maharashtra Pan-Aiapm7745G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vishwajit Shinde
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270A

270A of the Act dated 26.09.2023. 2. Registry has informed that the present appeal is time barred by 175 days. Application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit has been filed and main reason for delay is due to medical problem faced by assessee’s wife and that the delay ... Supreme Court) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382) condone the delay of 175 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. I note that five opportunities