“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

Tapovan Education Trust, Vadodara vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Vadodara

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

ITA 2310/AHD/2017[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri

Section 11Section 12ASection 80G

denial of registration under Section 80G of the Act is time barred by approximately 4½ years. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay, in which it was submitted that the delay in filing appeal against the order denying registration to the assessee / applicant trust was on account of delay ... grant of registration under Section 12A and under Section 80G of the Act. 4. In response, the Ld. D.R. opposed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that since the assessee has been running an educational institution, and it is also getting accounts audited, there is no reasonable

Swapnil Rajaram Kolambe, Jalgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Nashik

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

ITA 556/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.556/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Respondent: None

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 69

outset, I find there is a delay of 408 days in appeal the present appeal. The appellant had filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay by stating that delay in filing the appeal was attributable to the Chartered Accountant Shri Ravindranath Narayan Khairnar and the affidavit from the said ... occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. Therefore, keeping in mind the above settled principles governing the condonation of delay, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 8. As regards

Veena Mokashi Legal Heir of Late Anand Mokashi, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Pune

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

ITA 340/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Mr. Anup ShahaFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad

above grounds of appeal.” 2 ITA No.340/PUN/2024, AY 2013-14 3. The appeal is late by 70 days. Application for condonation of delay has been filed stating therein as under: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order in the case of Anand Hanumant Mokashi on 13th October ... Late Anand Mokashi, expresses her regrets for all the inconvenience caused to the Hon’ble ITAT & prays your Honour to kindly condone the delay in filing the appeal.” 4. After hearing the Representatives of the parties, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause

Shri. Santhakumar Damodaran Nadar, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, Ward -1(3), Trivandrum

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

ITA 950/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Sri. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

appeal, reserving our opinion in the matter of condonation, making it clear that it may not be construed as our condoning the delay, which aspect shall be visited later. 3. As regards the merits of the case, the assessee’s return of income for the relevant year, filed ... Santhakumar Damodaran Nadar v. ITO 5. We may at this stage pause and come back to our consideration of the condonation of delay. The case on merits; it’s finer aspects apart, is clearly in sync and agreement with the separate and neat compartments wherein the subject matters

Aatma Prakash Mental Health Foundation, Indore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 107/IND/2024[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 May 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaatma Prakash Mental Cit (Exemption), Health Foundation, Bhopal बनाम/ 738, Nehru Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aaoca9170A Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

Section 12ASection 253(5)Section 8Section 80G(5)

appeal is delayed by 52 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp. The affidavit is deposed by Smt. Prarthana Sharma, director of assessee. In the application/affidavit, it is stated that ... benefit because of delay. He further submitted that the sole reason of delay is genuinely explained in the affidavit/application. He prayed to condone the delay in the situation for the cause of justice. Ld. DR for Revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench. We have considered the explanation

Kovilpatti Nadar Uravin Murai Sangam, Thoothukudi vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

ITA 579/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.211/Chny/2024 (िनधा:रणवष: / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.579/Chny/2024 (िनधा:रणवष: / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kovilpatti Nadar Uravin Murai Sangam Acit (Exemptions), बनाम/ Pathirakalliamman Koil Street, Coimbatore. Vs. Kovilpatti-628 501. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaatk-8644-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S.Easwar (Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Easwar (JCIT)-Ld. DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154

absence of revised return, such claim was denied. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of condonation of delay of 370 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us in ITA No.579/Chny/2024. 3. In the meanwhile, Ld. AO passed rectification order

Town and City Developers, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw 1(1), Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 547/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri G.Tarun (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80A

sought another opportunity of hearing before lower authorities and also submitted that the assessee has already filed petition u/s 119(2)(b) seeking condonation of delay. The Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal. 2. Considering the facts as stated by Ld. AR, we deem it fit to restore

Prakash Mahiba Devi, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Tirupur

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.544/Chny/2024 (िनधा<रण वष< / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Prakash Mahiba Devi Ito बनाम No.183, Nathakoundampalayam Ward -2(1) Ward No1, Vadamalaipalayam Tirupur. / Vs. Coimbatore – 641 664 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Caepm-5175-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sirdhar (Advocate-Erode) - Ld. Ar (Virtual) " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S.Easwar (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 20-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of An Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] On 10-01-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 15-03-2022. The Assessee Has Failed To Appear Before Any Of The Lower Authorities. The Ld. Ar

For Appellant: Shri S. Sirdhar (Advocate-Erode) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Easwar (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144

assessment order, Ld. AO made addition of cash deposit of Rs.16 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 94 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. We find that excluding Covid-19 Pandemic Lockdown, period, there was minor

Kovilpatti Nadar Uravin Murvin Sangam, Thoothukudi vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

ITA 211/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Easwar (JCIT)-Ld. DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154

Asokan Thiripurasundhai, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 188/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Srinivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)

outset, it is noticed that this appeal is barred by limitation by 288 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition for condonation of delay supported with affidavit. The rectification order of CIT(A) is dated 04.03.2022 and as per Form No.36, the date of communication of order is also mentioned ... passing of the rectification order and the necessity for filing the appeal against the rectification order would constitute reasonable cause for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. Thus it is prayed that the delay of 236 days in filing the present appeal may be condoned and that

Amar Pal, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward - 1(1), Meerut

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

ITA 3684/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 250

fact, a liberal, pragmatic and justice oriented and non pedantic view is required to be observed while dealing with the application for condonation of delay. Thus having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter, the ground of rejection made by the Learned CIT(A) in condoning the delay ... found to be unsustainable. Considering the reason as narrated by the appellant, we, therefore, condone such delay in preferring the appeal before the First Appellate Authority. 3. As the issues before the First Appellate Authority remain unconsidered on merit, the same is set aside to the file of the said

Krishna Enterprises, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Gurgaon

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1838/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Naveen Chandra

Section 143(1)Section 250

Only during dictation of orders, it was found that both the appeals are filed late. In support of such delay, an application of condonation of delay has also been filed by the assessee in the respective appeals. Even on 20.05.2024 when the matters were taken up for clarification, the Learned ... appeals and only at our asking repeatedly, he started relying upon the applications, affidavits filed in support of such delay. 4. Application for condonation of delay of 206 days, affidavit affirmed by the Managing Partner and affidavit affirmed by the Tax Consultant and a medical certificate have been filed before

Krishna Enterprises, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Gurgaon

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1837/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Naveen Chandra

Section 143(1)Section 250

Gastroenterology Patient Care Welfare and Research Trust, Chandigarh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 98/CHANDI/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 May 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 98/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2023-24 Gastroenterology Patient Care Vs. The Commissioner Welfare & Research Trust, बनाम Of Income Tax Department Of Gastroenterology, Exemptions, F-Block, Nehru Hospital, Chandigarh Pgimer, Sector 12, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadtg8271C अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. S.K Bhasin, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2024

For Appellant: Sh. S.K Bhasin, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 80G(5)

Gastroenterology Patient Care Welfare and Research Trust, Chandigarh 2 2. At the very outset, there is an Application from the Assessee for condonation of delay of 185 days. During the proceedings, the ld. Counsel of the Assessee submitted that the delay was because of the commutations were sent ... Income-tax portal, which the Assessee could not see in time. The ld. Counsel further requested to condone the delay as it was not deliberate on the part of the Assessee. The matter was discussed and it was decided to condone the delay. The ld. DR also did not raise

M/S. Vydehi Super Speciality Hospital Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 559/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

erred in refusing to condone delay of 27 days in filing the appeal for which the appellant had also filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal, which is due to sufficient cause and not on account of any deliberate neglect ... that there was a delay of 27 days in filing the appeal before CIT(A) in assessment year 2017-18. He has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. In assessment year 2018-19, the ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without participation

M/S. Vydehi Super Speciality Hospital Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 558/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Jacarnda Capital Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed ex-parte

ITA 314/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

under Section 153C r.w. Section 143(3) of the Act. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is belated and the assessee seeks condonation of delay of about 201 days in terms of application dated 2 16.01.2019. On perusal of the application, it is noticed that a case has been

Ramsing Himmatsing Rajput, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Nashik

ITA 601/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.601/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ramsing Himmatsing Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Rajput, Plot No.17, Usha Bunglow, Near Seven Heven Hotel, Behind Lotus House, Chetna Nagar, Nashik- 422009. Pan : Adrpr2780A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition U/S 50C Of Rs. 14,25,000 By Taxing The Difference Between Govt. Valuation Of Rs.22,25,000 & Actual Sale Consideration Of Rs.8,00,000 Without Appreciating That The Impugned Land Located Near River Bank Was Vulnerable To Floods, It Was Situated Near Cremation

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

consideration as the income of the assessee. The appellant during the course of the appellate proceedings filed detailed submission and requested for the condonation of delay. The reasons were perused and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The appellant filed the copy of the sale deed, the copy

Smt. Mangla Ramniwas Mandhani Abmm Awas Yojna Foundation, Jalna vs. CIT ( Exemption ), Exemption

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

ITA 236/PUN/2024[N A]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.236/Pun/2024 (E-Appeal)

For Appellant: Shri Anand Partani &For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel

Section 10Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

well as Union of India Vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. 1996 taxmann.com 575 (SC) held that in the absence of power to condone the delay the statutory authority cannot condone the delay. Thus, the ld. CIT, Exemption denied the approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant ... such application is made. From the above provisions, it is very clear that no power is conferred upon neither on the CIT to condone the delay in filing Form 10AB, nor on Appellate Authority. 7. In the present case, the provisional approval u/s.80G(5) was granted to the appellant trust

Bhawana Hariram Lavhale, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Amravati

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 May 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 44Section 69A

assessee which are in respect of the orders dated 07/02/2024, passed by the learned CIT(A) dismissing the appeals by not condoning the delay of 35 days and holding that the appeals filed are barred by limitation. ITA no.169/Nag./2024 Assessee’s Appeal : A.Y. 2013-14 4. In its appeal ... Assessing Officer, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed application for condonation of delay along with affidavit of Advocate Smt. Shruti Joshi, for delay of about 35 days to be condoned. The assessee, pursuant to the notice issued under section