“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

C M Alloys Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-6(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 23/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & Accordingly, Appeal Has Been Dismissed As ‘Unadmitted’. The Details Of Number Of Days Delay In Filing Of The Appeals Are As Under:-

Section 144Section 147r

behind that assessee could not represent the case before any of the authorities below and this has been stated in the petition for condonation of delay as to what were the extreme circumstances in which assessee could not represent his case either before ... prepared the grounds of appeal and appeal Form -35 and filed the same before the Ld CIT(A) on 03/02/2018 with application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal However, he had not taken any pain and treated our cases as taken for granted and accordingly had made

C M Alloys Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-6(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 22/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2009-10

Section 144Section 147r

Lanco Rithwik Joint Venture, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 232/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha, G. Hon’Ble Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Lanco Rithwik Joint Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 14(1), Venture, Hyderabad. Plot No.37 & 39, Navodaya Colony, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034. Pan : Aabal3655J (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Aves Madhukar, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2024 09.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri AVES Madhukar, Sr.A.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)

outset, we find that there is a delay of 11 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal for which necessary petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee ... referring to the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay has submitted that the appeal could not be filed in the stipulated time as the order passed by ld.CIT(A) was misplaced with some other papers in the office of the assessee company and that appeal was filed

Sukamal Maity, Contai vs. ITO, Ward-27(2), Haldia

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

ITA 976/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

prayed that the assessee cannot be condemned without hearing on merit. 3. The Ld. D.R on the other hand left the issue of condonation of delay to the wisdom of the Bench. 4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record and reasons cited for delay ... been explained before us by the Counsel of the assessee. Therefore, keeping in view the principle of natural justice, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra

Narayan Singh Rajput, Khandwa vs. ITO-1, Khandwa

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

ITA 19/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninarayan Singh Rajput Ito-1 Wardno.2 Jamniya Road Khandwa Mundi Punasa Vs. Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bripr0714A Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024

Section 144Section 148

equity, the delay in filing appeal may please be condoned.” 3. On the other hand, Ld. DR has not objected to the condonation of delay. 4. On careful perusal and consideration of the cause of delay explained by the assessee in the affidavit we find that the assessee has shifted

Vasantarao Sanas Education Society, Pune vs. ITO, Exemption Ward 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 346/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

alter, modify, or substitute any ground of appeal.” 3. The appeal is late by 123 days. The assessee has moved an application for condonation of delay. Sworn affidavit has been filed along with the application stating therein the reasons for the delay in para 6 thereof as under ... time.” 4. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the delay is attributable to the sufficient cause. We, therefore, condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 5. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is a charitable trust carrying activities of school, sports

Kai Kashinath Posate Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha Udgir, Udgir vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 938/PUN/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.938/Pun/2023

For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 254(2)

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before us with a delay of 176 days. The appellant trust also filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay stating that the notice was received on e-mail ID belonging to one Mr. Atul Karkhelikar, an employee of the sister trust. The said ... without giving reasonable opportunity to comply with the 3 notice. It is, therefore, prayed for remand of the matter to the CIT, Exemption condoning the delay. 4. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed for remand of the matter to the CIT (Exemption) and condonation of delay

The Lankalakoderu Large Size Co-Operative Credit Society Limited No 1904, Palakoderu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palakol

ITA 86/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.85/Viz/2024 & 86/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2020-21) The Lankalakoderu Large Size Co- Vs. Income Tax Officer Operative Credit Society Ltd. Ward-1, Income Tax Office No.1904, Palakoderu Mandal Aayakar Bhavan West Godavari Dist. Doddipatla Road [Pan : Aacat5595N] Palakol (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(AA)Section 80P(2)(a)

assessee 2 I.T.A. No.85/Viz/2024 & 86/Viz/2024, A.Y.2018-19 & 2020-21 The Lankalakoderu Large Size Co-operative Credit Society Ltd, Palakoderu filed a petition for condonation of delay, submitting that Sri Guduri Prasada Rao, Secretary of the assessee society and authorised signatory, suffered from severe lower back pain and was under treatment ... submitted medical certificate as proof and submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate and therefore pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. In the instant case, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was passed on 21.12.2023, as such, the appeal

The Lankalakoderu Large Size Co-Operative Credit Society Limited No 1904, Palakoderu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palkol

ITA 85/VIZ/2024[201819]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 May 2024

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(AA)Section 80P(2)(a)

Sri. Biswajit Bera, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-27(3), Haldia

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

ITA 1134/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1134/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sri Biswajit Bera Income Tax Officer, Ward – 27(3), C/O. M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co. Vs Haldia 7, C.R. Avenue 3Rd Floor Kolkata - 700072 [Pan : Blwpb4251N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Fca Revenue By : Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Jcit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 21/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 152 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. We Find That The Assessee Has Placed An Affidavit Dated 19/01/2024, Stating Therein The Reasons For The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Before This Tribunal With A Prayer To Condone The Delay. The Reasons Stated In The Affidavit Are Reproduced Below:- “4. That The Said Delay Of 151 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Appellant Before The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, Is Not Intentional But The Said Delay Is Due To The Following Reasons & Circumstances: -

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, JCIT, D/R

Section 250

affidavit dated 19/01/2024, stating therein the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal with a prayer to condone the delay. The reasons stated in the affidavit are reproduced below:- “4. That the said delay of 151 days in filing the appeal by the appellant before ... part of the assessee was on account of bona fide cause and the same was not intentional. Therefore, we deem it fit to condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that both the lower authorities have passed

Happiness by Rnd Soft Trust, Coimbatore vs. CIT-E, Chennai

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

ITA 247/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No.246/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2022-23 Shree Rangammal Educational Trust, Vs. Cit(Exemption), No.91, Avinashi Road, Chennai Coimbatore-641018. [Pan: Aadts2902A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No.247/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2022-23 Happiness By Rnd Soft Trust, Vs. Cit(Exemption), 274/4, Anna Private Industrial Estate, Chennai Vilankurichi Road, Vilankurichi, Coimbatore-641035. [Pan: Aacth4194G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 02.05.2024 : घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Is Against The Separate Common Order Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Cit(E), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

find the assessee filed this appeal with a delay of 435 days. The assessee filed notarised affidavit dated 08.04.2024 accompanying a petition for condonation of delay stating reasons. Upon hearing both the parties, on perusal of the condonation petition, we note that no order was received from ... appeal in ITA-246/Chnny/2024 for Assessment Year 2022-23 and adopted the same arguments. Since we have taken a decision to condone the delay of 435 days in ITA-246/Chnny/2024 and remanded 5 I.T.A. No.246 & 247/Chny/2024 the matter to the file of CIT(Exemptions) for its fresh consideration

Sree Rangammal Educational Trust, Coimbatore vs. CIT-Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 246/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Shri Padam Prabhu Jain Aushdhalaya Vikas Samiti, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Alwar

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

ITA 98/JPR/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2024AY 2022-2023

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 10Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 144BSection 80G

appeals in ITA No. 97 & 98/Jodh/2024 filed are delayed by 374 days. The Id. AR of the assessee relied upon the petition for condonation of delay with following prayers in ITA No. 97/JPR/2024:- "We hope this letter finds you in good health and high spirits. We are writing to humbly ... mala fide intension on the part of assessee for delay in filing the appeal before your good self. You are requested to kindly condone the delay and accept our appeal. 3.1 The Id. AR of the assessee in support of the arguments in support of condonation delay submitted that

Centre for E-Governance, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, (Exemptions), Bangalore

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

ITA 512/BANG/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

Project Expenses of Rs.69,43,34,709/- and the Society had also made an application to ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) to condone the delay of filing Form-IO and the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has condoned the delay in filing Form No.10. After getting the condonation

Markolines Infra Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2020-

ITA 366/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyaland

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

cross-objection filed by the assessee is delayed by 102 days. Along with the cross-objection, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the cross-objection, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the Director of the assessee. In the aforesaid affidavit

Markolines Infra Pvt Ltd., Belapur vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle-15(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1170/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyaland

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

ACIT-15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Markolines Infra Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2967/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Himalaya Trust, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-50(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 73/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80G

sufficient cause from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. ( See Mohindra Land and Building ... whereof has also been submitted before us which has been duly considered. Thus, keeping in view the entire aspects of the matter, we condone the delay in preferring the appeal before the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) having been satisfied with the explanation so rendered by the appellant before the said authorities

Shri Nitin Nandlal Shrishrimal, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhule, Circle

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

ITA 1366/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1366/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Nitin Nandlal Vs. Acit, Dhule Circle, Shrishrimal, Dhule. 1269, Agra Road, Near Gandhi Statute, Dhule- 424001. Pan : Azvps8225M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Naimish Dixit Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)Pune - 11, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly I.E. With The Delay Of 15 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Application Praying For Condonation Of Delay In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. Ld. Sr. Dr Could Not Controvert The Averments Made In The Above Affidavit. We Are Of The Considered Opinion That The Reasons

For Appellant: Shri Naimish DixitFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 115BSection 133ASection 44A

present appeal is filed belatedly i.e. with the delay of 15 days. The appellant furnished an application praying for condonation of delay in the circumstances mentioned therein. Ld. Sr. DR could not controvert the averments made in the above affidavit. We are of the considered opinion that the reasons ... filed with a delay of 35 days before ld. CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay of 35 days. The relevant portion of the CIT(A)’s order is reproduced as under :- “4. Thus, it is a well settled

Ravinder Chinthapula, Karimnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 188/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla, DR

assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal with a delay of one day. Though the learned DR vehemently opposed the condonation of delay of one day in filing the appeal, I am of the considered opinion that delay of one day shall not come in considering the merits