“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

Babasaheb Bhagawan Atkire, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 7, Pune

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

ITA 1368/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Babasaheb Bhagawan Atkire, Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, S.No.50/3, Flat No.9, Floor No.1, Pune Kure Plazapune, Opp. Konark Pooram Main Gate, Kondhwa Khurd, Pune 411048, Maharashtra Pan : Afepa8628K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Shri Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 143(3)Section 250

deliberate but solely due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control. 3. That the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the original appeal against the assessment order dated 23.12.2019. The said CIT(A) order was passed on 20.06.2024. 4. That the appellant ... view of the above facts and circumstances, the appellant respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to: a. Condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal; b. Admit and hear the appeal on merits; or alternatively, sent

Kyori Oremin Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2037/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2037/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Kyori Oremin Limited, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Vs. Pin - 500 081. Circle-2(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aadck1617K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca For Revenue : Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40

extent the order is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and not condoning the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal before him, without appreciating that the appellant has reasonable cause for such delay in filing ... time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the learned CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal despite the reasons for delay explained by the assessee before the learned CIT(A). He has also filed an affidavit

Dandeboina Ramesh, Warangal vs. ITO, Ward-(1), Warangal

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

ITA 1661/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 115Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69A

circumstances of the case, the order of learned CITA is erroneous and bad in law. 2. The learned CIT A ought to have condoned the delay in filing appeal before him and considered the appeal on merits. 3. The learned CIT A failed to appreciate that the impugned asst order ... However, there was a delay of 231 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation without adjudicating the issues on merits. Page 3 of 7 ITA No.1661/Hyd/2025

Lagusari Pedda Sunakanna, Kurnool vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1172/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

Section 69A

delay of 78 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee ... condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee has not shown sufficient cause for the delay and therefore the petition for condonation deserves to be rejected

Ramesh Lalawat, Vashi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 8838/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramesh Lalawat Income Tax Officer, Room No 102, Goma Sadan Ward 28(2)(1), Plot No 400, Mumbai Nr Cisf, Juhu Gaon Vs. Sector No. 11, Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703 (Pan: Aeepl2218K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Ajay R. Singh, Advocate Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074653077(1), Dated 18.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Mum-W-(272)(91), U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 15.09.2023, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 249Section 249(2)Section 3Section 5

filed on time within the time limit as per the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act and rejected the application for condonation of delay of 114 days in filing the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the appellant without giving any opportunity ... delay of 202 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal as noted by the registry for which a petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. We also note from ground no.1 raised by the assessee that first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was also barred

Bharat Thakarshi Mamania, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 8510/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

submitted that there is a delay of 229 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed along with an affidavit of the assessee in support of the same, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- ***This space has been left ... blank intentionally, P.T.O.*** 5 I.T.A. No. 8510/Mum/2025 Petititon for condonation of delay:- 6 I.T.A. No. 8510/Mum/2025 7 I.T.A. No. 8510/Mum/2025 8 I.T.A. No. 8510/Mum/2025 9 I.T.A. No. 8510/Mum/2025 10 I.T.A. No. 8510/Mum/2025 11 I.T.A. No. 8510/Mum/2025 Affidavit in support of condonation petition:- 12 I.T.A. No. 8510/Mum/2025 13 I.T.A. No. 8510/Mum/2025

Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 4477/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bishnupriya Bijaychandra Mahanty Ito, Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai 204 Plot 13/A Wing Siddhivinayak It-Office, Vashi Railway Vs. Chs, Sector 6, Ghansoli, Navi Station Building, Mumbai 400701, Navi Mumbai- 400703 Authroised Person Add: 218, Ratna High Street, Naranpura, Ahmedabad- 380013 Pan No. Btdpm 7308 A Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Pritesh L. Shah (Virtually

Section 1Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69

rival submission of the parties eard the rival submission of the parties on the issue eard the rival submission of the parties of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It is a settled principle It is a settled principle Bishnupriya Bijaychandra ... appeal on time, as there are bonafide reasons for the delay time, as there are bonafide reasons for the delay, , accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for condone the delay

Getinge Medical India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai Maharashtra

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

ITA 4872/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 156Section 234ASection 270ASection 37Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

this ground alone. 5. Further in the course of the hearing the assessee was also asked to clarify whether an application for condonation of delay in respect of the filing of form 10-IC has also been filed before jurisdictional Pr. CIT, and the same could not be clarified ... onus to clarify all the pending proceedings which would affect the ongoing proceedings is on the assessee and if an application for condonation of delay is already pending before jurisdictional Pr. CIT, then the assessee (whose appeal in respect of the ground pertaining to section 115BAA is in substance requesting

Manoj Kumar, Bhiwani vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhiwani

In the result, assesse’s appeal is disposed of for statistical purpose

ITA 8820/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaita No.8802/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Section 144Section 144o

Kumar vs. ITO 3. The appeal is found to be barred by limitation for 850 days in support of which an application for condonation of delay has been filed narrating the cause of counsels suffering from Cancer and hence, the appeal could not be pressed before the authorities below ... made and further confirmed ex-parte. The reason whereof has already been narrated by us hereinabove while dealing with the application for condonation of delay. In that view of the mater, since, the assessment was passed u/s 144 of the Act being an ex-parte order further confirmed

Manoj Kumar, Bhiwani vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhiwani

In the result, assesse’s appeal is disposed of for statistical purpose

ITA 8802/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaita No.8802/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Section 144Section 144o

Rajmata Kaviteshwari Devi, Satna vs. Incometax Officer, Satna

ITA 107/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 254Section 264

learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) (NFAC)erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application of the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before him without appreciating that the delay in filing the appeal was bona fide, beyond the control of the appellant

M/S. Construction Engineersw, Barazula vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Srinagar

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

ITA 712/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. M. A. Mir, Cost Accountant

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250

I.T.A. Nos. 712 & 600/Asr/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 I.T.A. No. 600/Asr/2025 for A.Y. 2018-19 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal has been filed belatedly by 579 (five hundred seventy-nine) days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation ... existence of the order itself in the portal, the appeal before the Tribunal could not be filed in time and he prayed for condonation of delay and for admission of the appeal for hearing on merits, in absence of any willful neglect on the part of the assessee

M/S. Construction Engineers, Srinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Srinagar

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

ITA 600/ASR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. M. A. Mir, Cost Accountant

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250

Awla Infra, Ferozepur vs. Assitant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Ferozepur

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

ITA 53/ASR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

considering the grounds of appeal and the materials on record, we proceed to dispose off the case after hearing the ld. D.R. 3. Condonation of delay: This appeal is filed belatedly by 392 (three hundred ninety-two) days, and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay explained ... Tribunal against technically incorrect order passed by the ld. CIT(A) which was belated by 392 days. As such, he prayed for condonation of delay and for admission of the appeal to be heard on merits. 5. The ld. DR has no objection. 3 I.T.A. No. 53/Asr/2025 Assessment Year

Shri Tariq Ahmad Dar, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Udhampur

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

ITA 422/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C.A

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 210Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

Ward, Anantnag dated 22.12.2019 passed u/s 144 of the Act, 1961. 2 I.T.A. No. 422/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. Condonation of Delay: This appeal is filed by the assessee belatedly by 380 (three hundred eighty days) and the assessee has filed an application along with an affidavit , explaining ... wrong , which prompted the assessee to appoint a new counsel and file this present appeal belatedly on 15/05/2025 . He prays for condonation of delay and for admission of the appeal for hearing on merits. The Ld DR objects to the same on account of the long delay but leaves

Gurdeep Singh, Jammu and Kashmir vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle 1, Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir

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

ITA 294/ASR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Jammu dated 26.12.2017 passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I.T.A. No. 294/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is filed belatedly by 590 (five hundred ninety) days. He has filed an explanation along ... assessee. However, considering the unfortunate demise of the chartered accountant, Sh. Kapil Aggarwal and also in the interest of justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 5. However, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case where cost should be imposed

Sh. Zahoor Ahmad Kakroo, Baramula vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

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

ITA 230/ASR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 230/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Zahoor Ahmad Kakroo, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Kanlibagh, Near Masjid Umer, Srinagar. Baramulla, Jammu & Kashmir. [Pan:-Arxpk1190K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Shabir Ahmad Mir, Ca Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 250

order of AO, Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Baramulla, passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act, vide order dated 27.11.2018. 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is belatedly filed by 656 (six hundred fifty six days). The assessee has filed ... assessee legal provisions and also on account of technical incompetency to look into the income tax portal. As such, he prayed for condoning the delay of 656 days and for admission of this appeal to be taken up for hearing on merits. The ld. DR vehemently objected and has submitted

Shri Ghulam Nabi Lone, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Anantnag

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 624/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 624/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Ghulam Nabi Lone, Vs. Ito, Ward, Dangarpora, Siligam, Pahalgam, Anantnag. Ananthnag, Jammu & Kashmir. [Pan:-Ahypl1427H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None (Written Submission) Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

from the order of AO, Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Anantnag, passed u/s 144 of the Act, vide order dated 23.12.2019. 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is belatedly filed by 69 (sixty nine days). The assessee has filed an application ... condonation of the same and admission of the appeal on merits. The Ld. DR has no objection. 2.1 Considering the reasons we condone the delay of sixty-nine days there being “sufficient cause” and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 3. There is no representation by the assessee

Shri Om Parkash Bajaj, Ferozepur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Ferozepur

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

ITA 216/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None (Adjournment application)

Section 144Section 148Section 156Section 249(3)Section 250

Ferozepur dated 25.12.2019 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 I.T.A. No. 216/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 2. Condonation of delay: This appeal is belated by four days, and considering the explanation of the assessee the same is condoned and the appeal is admitted

Yasir Nisar Wani, Srinagar vs. ITO, Srinagar

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

ITA 100/ASR/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2008-2009

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Vaseem Ahmad, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Srinagar dated 30.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 I.T.A. No. 100/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 2. Condonation of delay: This appeal is filed belatedly by 1741 days (One Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty-one days). The CIT(A) order is passed on 26th March ... completely beyond my control. The delay is unintentional and bona fide. 8. That I respectfully pray that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly condone the delay in filing the appeal.” 3. Thereafter, he filed another condonation application to submit as follows: “We are submitting this response in response your letter