“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

Mahratta Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture, Pune vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 347/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 11Section 12Section 143(2)Section 144Section 25Section 270A

found to be not sufficient/reasonable by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of not condonation of delay in filing the appeal without deciding the issues on merits of the case. The relevant observations and findings of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC reads ... under : “2.7 In this case, the appeal is filed late by 209 days. In Para 2, 3 & 4 of its application for condonation of delay, the appellant has given the following reasons for delay in filing of the appeal: "2. It is submitted that the impugned asst. order was passed

Nirmala Sunil Nawale, Karegaon, Tal Shirur, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(1), Pune, Bodhi Towers, Gultekadi

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

ITA 2946/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2946/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vs Ito, Ward Nirmala Sunil Nawale, Kk Nag Ltd, Anand Patil 13(1), Pune 86 Midc, Ranjangaon, Shirur Pune-412220 Maharashtra Pan-Almpn3657K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vishwajit Shinde

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

FOLLOWED THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND REJECTED THE APPEAL AT LIMINE (AT THE THRESHOLD) BY REJECTING THE REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE HIM. 2) THE HON, CIT (A) DISMISSED THE CASE AFTER ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S 250 FOR MAKING SUBMISSIONS ON THE MERITS, HENCE ... Apex Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382) I hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 7. So far as merits of the case are concerned, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has made reference

Shree Chaitanya-Ram Foundation, Bavdhan Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2619/PUN/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2025-2026

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar, CIT

Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

filing of the application and mentioning wrong code. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset referring to the affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of Form No.10AB, copy of which is placed at pages 1 to 3 of the paper book submitted that both the provisional approval ... objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(Exemption) with a direction to consider the application for condonation of delay and decide the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee

Shree Chaitanya-Ram Foundation, Bavdhan vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 2618/PUN/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2025-2026

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar, CIT

Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Dnyaneshwar Shinde, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1726/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prashant GhumareFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist

Section 10Section 147

circumstances of the case, and in law, the order be held as bad in law. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 2. CONDONATION OF DELAY 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not admitting the appeal and not condoning the delay. 2 ITA No.1726/PUN/2025, AY 2019-20 2.2 It is submitted ... order reveals that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-condonation of delay. He, however proceeded to decide the 8 ITA No.1726/PUN/2025, AY 2019-20 issue on merits of the case and upheld the additions made

Qadeer Ahmed Mohammed, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 768/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 68

assessee 4 Qadeer Ahmed Mohammed admitted that, there was a delay in filing of the appeal and filed submissions seeking condonation of delay. The assessee explained that, he was suddenly taken ill and was unable to attend to the matter in time and, in addition, was facing family issues which ... CBDT in Civil Writ Petition No. 8293/2024 dated 30.05.2024, the Ld. CIT(A) held that, the power of 5 Qadeer Ahmed Mohammed condonation of delay can be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances and not routinely. Since the assessee failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay as contemplated under Section

Majji Srinivasa Rao, Khammam vs. ITO., Ward-1, Kothagudem

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 370/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate

Section 250

that there is a delay of 366 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit, Page 1 of S ITA No 370/HYD/2025 Majji Srinivasa Rao seeking admission of the belated appeal. The assessee has stated ... thereafter filed the present appeal. It was contended that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and that there existed sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) strongly opposed the condonation of delay. The Ld. DR invited our attention to Form

Abraham Nathaniel Addanki, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1148/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1148/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Abraham Nathaniel Vs. Income Tax Officer, Addanki, Ward-14(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Adqpa7546N

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

condoned. 12. Per contra, Shri K. Vinoth Kanna, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. Sr-DR”) objected to the seeking of condonation of delay in filing of the present appeal by the assessee. 13. We have thoughtfully considered the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the present

Kakinada Infrastructure Holdings Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 1053/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Respondent: MS Reema Yadav, Sr. AR

Section 270A

outset, there is a delay of 506 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the Managing Director of the assessee company. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that ... Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has vehemently opposed to the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee has not explained any reasonable cause for the delay of 506 days in filing the present appeal. The reasons

Bengal Distribution House, Malda vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Malda

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

ITA 2103/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Bengal Distribution House…....……………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kol-69.. [Pan: Aaifb9692D] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Malda…………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Ms. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 14, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Against The Order Dated 31.07.2025 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. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Was Completed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Act With An Addition Of Rs.71,02,210/- & Penalty U/S 271Aac(1) Of The Act Was Imposed By The Assessing Officer.

Section 147Section 250Section 271A

under: 2 Bengal Distribution House 5. The ld. AR also submits that the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the submission for the condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee solely on the ground of delay without considering the same on merits. He, therefore, in the interests ... assessee, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the delay of 868 days in filing the appeal of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and also restore the appeal to the file

Airoplast Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7409/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member)

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69

outset, it is noticed that the appeal is barred by a delay of 17 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the email address and contact number mentioned in Form No 35 filed before the NFAC

Amit Narayan Karkera, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer, Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7350/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 69

thus delayed by 56 days from the prescribed period of limitation. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed a detailed application for condonation of delay, wherein he explained that the delay was not deliberate, nor attributable to negligence or inaction, but was occasioned due to bona fide and genuine ... order in any effective manner. It was also stated that there was no history of delay on his part and that refusal to condone the delay would permanently shut the door of statutory redressal available to him. Notwithstanding these explanations, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as barred

Connect Pack LLP, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7102/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2017-18 Connect Pack Llp, Income Tax Office Office No.4 Second Floor, Naitonal Faceless Washington Plaza, 269 Vs. Assessment Centre, Topiwala Road, Goregawan, Delhi – 110001. Mumbai – 400062. Pan – Aakfc2777Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Shailendra Singh Solanki, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.09.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer, Vide Assessment Order Dated 10.05.2023 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, Has Made An Addition Of Rs.36,50,000/- As Unexplained Cash Deposit Under Section 68 Of The Act. 2 Connect Pack Llp

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Singh Solanki, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. SR. D.R

Section 147Section 249Section 250Section 68

support of such claim, has also filed duly sworn affidavit. 4. The Ld. Commissioner though considered the aforesaid explanation of the Assesse qua condonation of delay of 510 days in filing the first appeal before him, however, declined to entertain the same, on the ground that the Assessee ... circumstances of the case, we observed that nothing is available on record to prove the contrary to the claim of the Assessee qua condonation of delay as raised before the Ld. Commissioner and the reasons stated by the Assessee for delay in filing of first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner

O P Jindal Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exem. Ward 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 6375/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 254(1)

before filing return of income. The assessee has not acted in accordance with rules framed by CBDT. The assessee should have applied for condonation of delay by CBDT. 5. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities. I find

O P Jindal Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exem. Ward 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 6374/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 254(1)

Dona Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5375/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan() Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dona Builders Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai 108, Shiv Aashish S.V. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058 400020 Pan No. Aaacd 3116 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Shah Assessee By : Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr-Dr A/W Revenue By Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Cit Dr : 06/11/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 Order Per Bench These Five Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, SR-DR a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Shah

Section 147Section 68

learned counsel for the assessee drew filing the present appeal. The learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the application for condonation of delay supported our attention to the application for condonation of delay supported our attention to the application for condonation of delay supported by a sworn

Dona Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5374/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan()

For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Shah

Section 147Section 250Section 68

delay of 763 days in filing the present appeal. The learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the application for condonation of delay supported by a sworn affidavit explaining the circumstances leading to such delay. 3.1 In the affidavit, it has been averred that the notice of hearing

Dona Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5373/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan()

For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Shah

Section 147Section 250Section 68

Dona Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5372/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan()

For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Shah

Section 147Section 250Section 68

Dona Builders Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5371/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Annavaram Kosuri, SR-DR a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Shah

Section 147Section 68