“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

N. Gunasekar, Salem vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 1141/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1141/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri N. Gunasekar, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 196-C, Anna Nagar, Shyamala Income Tax, Nivas, Kannankurichi, No. 3, Gandhi Circle 1(1), Road, Salem 636 008. Salem. [Pan:Ajopg3410B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, Dated 27.07.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 16 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Detailed Petition For Condonation Of The Delay In Support Of An Affidavit. By Referring To The Above Condonation Petition, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That 2

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

Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

No.1141/Chny/23 there is reasonable cause for the delay and the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor wanton and prayed for condonation of delay and to admit the appeal for adjudication. Against the above submissions, the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. Considering the above ... hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 30.09.2012 under section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short

Pincity Jewlhouse Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT, CC, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 63/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik, CIT

Section 10ASection 147Section 253(5)Section 263Section 5

appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of 3 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: Application for condonation of delay u/s 253(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with section 5 of Limitation ... filing of appeal Hon'ble Sir(s), The humble assessee appellant applicant respectfully prays for the condonation of delay in the filling of Appeal for the following reason: 1. That the Id. PCIT (Central), Jaipur passed his order on 17.03.2021 which was served upon the assessee appellant applicant

Shashidhar Mariswamy, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1151/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Shashidhar Mariswamy, Vs. Ito, No.108, Chudenapur Dakhale, Ward – 3(2)(3), Bengaluru South, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 060. Pan : Bgqpm 9940 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Nilanjan Dey, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilanjan Dey, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250

Assessment Year is 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 93 days in filing this appeal. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by affidavit stating therein the reasons for late filing of this appeal. We have perused the reasons stated in the affidavit for belated ... view that there is reasonable cause and no latches can be attributed to the assessee for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay of 93 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. Page 2 of 3 3. At the very

Sahyadri Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20(3)2), Mumbai

ITA 3805/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil Padvekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Arunkumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

delay was neither willful nor international. 2. However, on the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue opposed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the late filing of appeals in this case is apparently malafide due to callous attitude of the assessee and prayed ... inefficiency of the accountant who could not handle the issue on his own, we find sufficient cause to condone the delay in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Land Acquisition Collector vs. MST Katiji & Others 167 ITR 471 (SC) wherein

Shri Krishan Kanchan Sewa Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemptions Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 763/JPR/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2024

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Atul Kumar Gokhru, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 12A

appeal by the assessee for which the assessee vide application dated 20-12-2023 filed a condonation application with the prayer to condone the delay of three days in filing the appeal with following narration. ‘’There is delay of 3 days in filing the appeal before your honour. This delay ... filed this appeal on 12th Dec. 2023. The delay in filing the appeal is bona fide. Therefore, you are kindly requested to please condone the delay in filing the appeal before ITAT.’’ 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR objected to such delay of three days in filing

Sri Praja Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 28/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Praja Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.1, 3Rd Main Road, Nagappa Block, Ward – 2(2)(1), Sriramapura, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 021. Pan : Aaajs 1557 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas Bharath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Disallowed the deduction despite filing the tax audit reports along with audited financial statements well within time and also applying to CBDT for condonation of delay in filing return of Income. The assessment unit erred in not considering the delay in filing of return of income as a mere technical ... assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR reiterated that assessee had filed a petition for condoning the delay in filing the return of income and same is pending consideration by the CBDT. Hence, it was submitted that the matter may be restored

Prahlad Dutt Lata, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-35(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 265/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 265/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Prahlad Dutt Lata Income Tax Officer, Ward – Vs 35(1), Kolkata Urvashi Apartment 3, Hunger Ford Street Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aaxpl1559J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/03/2024 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 Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 13/08/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 86 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Reason For The Said Delay Is Mainly On Account Of Old Age Of The Assessee & The Delay On The Part Of The Person Who Received The Envelope Sent From The Office Of The Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Required To Be Handed Over To The Assessee. On Perusal Of The Affidavit, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 234BSection 250

Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 86 days in filing of this appeal. There is a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit and the reason for the said delay is mainly on account of old age of the assessee and the delay ... reasonable cause 2 I.T.A. No. 265/Kol/2019; Assessment Year: 2014-15 Prahlad Dutt Lata from filing this appeal in prescribed time limit. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 3. When the case was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee

Hari Narayan Meena, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 2(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 56/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Which Was Being Handled By The Earlier Authorized Representative & The Information & Details Of The Case Had Been Provided To The Assessee Recently Only.

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma (Adv.)

Section 143(3)

days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit : “41. That the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals ... days caused in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned.” To this effect, the assessee has filed an affidavit as to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2.2 The Id. AR of the assessee appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is serious

M/S. Jain Farms & Resorts Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Smt Sheetal BorkarFor Respondent: Sri V Parithivel

Section 250

days. Along with the present appeals, the assessee has filed an affidavit of Managing Director of the assessee, Mr. K. Mangal Chand, seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeals. In the aforesaid affidavit, it has been submitted that impugned order dated 28/02/2017 was received by the assessee ... that no material fact has been withheld therein. This affidavit is executed for submission before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), seeking condonation of delay for the timely filing of Form 36, in strict adherence to the legal requisites governing the subject matter herein. (K. Mangal Chand)” M/s. Jain Farms

M/S. Jain Farms Private Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Smt Sheetal BorkarFor Respondent: Sri V Parithivel

Section 250

Mr. Shashi Bhartia, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 230/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) noted that there is a delay of 2 years 5 months for filing the appeal which was to be filed by 23.01.2020, however it was filed on 14.6.2022. No sufficient reason was explained by the assessee for the inordinate delay in filing the

For Appellant: Smt. Ishita Bhaumik, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139Section 147

appeal is against the order dated Order dated 18.12.2023 of the Addl./Jt.CIT(Appeals)-1, Jaipur for the AY 2012-13 in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income ... sufficient reason was explained by the assessee for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal, therefore the CIT(Appeals) rejected condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 4. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(Appeals

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 19 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay stating that the period of delay is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the period of Covid-19 Pandemic ... that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 19 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay stating ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 62 that the period of delay is covered by the decision

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

Acil Navasar Jan Rural Development Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exem) Ward1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 3743/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Priti Kamble (Accountant)For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 11(1)(a)Section 12A

been made filing of form no. 10 has been made effective form AY 2016 form AY 2016-17 and for any condonation of delay in any condonation of delay in uploading or efiling the form No. 10 uploading or efiling the form No. 10 the authority has been ... reason of delay in submitting the Form 10 of Income therefore, we feel if appropriate to therefore, we feel if appropriate to condone the delay in filing of condone the delay in filing of form no 10 and restore this appeal restore this appeal back