“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

Bengal Intelligent Parks Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-1(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1061/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Shri Saurabh Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, JCIT, D/R

Section 250

registry has informed that both these appeals are time barred by 25 days and petition for condonation of delay has been filed and we find that the delay was on account of pre-occupation of the Authorized Representative for the preparation and finalization of Tax Audits which were

Dipak Kanti Mazumder, Kolkata vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1040/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1040/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dipak Kanti Mazumder Asst. Director Of Income Tax, 43, Raja S.C. Mallick Road Vs Cpc, Bengaluru West Bengal - 700084 [Pan : Aevpm3879E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/02/2024 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, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/02/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Registry Has Informed That This Appeal Is Time Barred By 165 Days & Petition For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed & We Find That The Delay Was On Account Of Not Following Up Of The E-Mail Id By The Assessee On Which The First Appellate Order Was Received. However, When The Assessee Was Apprised Of The Same By His Authorized Representative, He Immediately Took Steps For Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. Considering The Same & In The Larger Interest Of Justice, Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The registry has informed that this appeal is time barred by 165 days and petition for condonation of delay has been filed and we find that the delay was on account of not following up of the e-mail id by the assessee on which

The Namakkal Agricultural Producers Coop Marketing Society Limited, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward 1, Namakkal

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

ITA 1519/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P

days and going through the facts of the case and also the short delay of 133 days, I’m inclined to condone the delay which was not objected to, by the ld. Senior DR. Hence, I condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The only issue in this appeal ... specified u/s.139(1) of the Act. The assessee before CIT(A) and even before Tribunal claimed that it had filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing the return of income for the assessment year 2019-20 before the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), New Delhi vide their

Income Tax Officer Ncw 19(4), Chennai vs. Chengam Durga, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1514/CHNY/2023[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1514/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Income Tax Officer, Smt. Chengam Durga, Non-Corporate Ward 19(4), V. No. 50, Kasi Estate, Ashok Chennai. Nagar, Jafferkhanpet, Chennai – 600 083. [Pan: Achpd-0525-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. K. R. Sudersan, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Sudersan, CA

Section 143(1)

file Form no. 67, within the prescribed time, then remedy available to the appellant is to file petition before the CBDT for condonation of delay. But, there is no power with the Assessing Officer to allow credit for taxes paid outside India, if Form no. 67 is not filed

Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Cuddalore vs. Murary Setty Durga Mounika, Neyveli

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

ITA 1217/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: None

Section 143(1)

Form 36. The appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 02.11.2023 with a delay of 87 days. The Revenue has filed affidavit for condonation of delay stating that the AO was holding additional charge of administration and therefore, the appeal papers could not be processed in time and also ... stated that the delay was unintentional and was beyond the control of AO. We find the cause as reasonable and hence, condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. At the outset, it is noticed that the tax effect in this appeal is below Rs.50.00 lakhs and therefore, in view

Rajesh Agarwal, Vidhyadhara Nagar Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer WD 4(1), ITO Jaipur

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

ITA 22/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Batwara (Adv.)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 68Section 69C

appellant, it is seen that even though there was a delay in filing of appeal, the appellant has not made any request for condonation of delay nor hatt he submitted any reasonable cause for such inordinate delay in filing of appeal, In absence of any bonafide cause or reason cited ... bound to reject the appeal The only order that can, therefore, be passed under section 30 is an order condoning or refusing to condone the delay where the appeal is time-barred and the consequential order admitting or refusing to admit the appeal. Section 30 does not provide

Vipul Parimal Thakore, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 3595/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri.Anuj Krisnadwala.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Usha Gaikwad.Sr. DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 90

that there is a delay of 10 days in filing the appeals before the Hon’ble Tribunal and has filed the application for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts ITA No. 3595 & 3597/Mum/2023 Vipul Parimal Thakore, Mumbai. mentioned in the application are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific ... objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeals. 3. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and interlinked, for the sake of convenience, we shall take up the ITA No. 3595/Mum/2023 for the A.Y 2020-21 as lead case and facts narrated. The assessee has raised

Sayaji Foods Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 15(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3403/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Smt. Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 250

assessee submitted that in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the present appeal could not be filed within the limitation period and requested for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. 3. We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters ... considered view that there exists sufficient cause for not filing the present appeal within the limitation period and therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 4. In its appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:– “The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred

Manish Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-59(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and the

ITA 527/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaasstt. Yr: 2009-10

Section 144

issue on merits is restored to the file of learned CIT(A) to give an opportunity to the assessee to file application for condonation of delay supported with affidavit and after determination of the same as per law the issue will be decided on merits afresh. Order pronounced in open

Prarambh Multitrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as indicated above

ITA 1368/KOL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2008-09 Prarambh Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-2(1), Kolkata. Room No. 401A, 4Th Floor, 154, Vs. Lenin Sarani, Kolkata-700013. (Pan: Aaccp8985C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Dutta, CIT, DR

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 255

assessee to file a fresh appeal before the appropriate bench of the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the assessee along with petition for condonation of delay caused on this account. The period exhausted on account of filing the present appeal and its present disposal may be considered for condonation of delay

M/S People University, Bhopal vs. CIT Exemption, Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 345/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 10Section 2

Income-tax Act, 1961. There is a delay of 129 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith the affidavit of Counsel of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the impugned order was communicated to Page ... appeal of the assessee be adjudicated on merit. 2. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative has vehemently objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee has not explained sufficient cause for delay of more than 4 months and shifting the blame on the counsel

M/S Bagora Developers P Ltd, Indore vs. The Ait OSD, Indore

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

ITA 73/IND/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Bagora Developers Pvt. Acit- Ltd. Indore 34, Revenue Nagar Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaecb6424E Assessee By Shri Siddharth Mahajan & Ashok Mahajan, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2024

Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271F

There is a delay of 323 days in filing the present appeal the assessee has filed an application of condonation of delay which is supported by an Affidavit. ITANo.73/Ind/2021 Bagora Developers P. ltd. 3. We have heard ld.AR as well as Ld. DR on condonation of delay and careful perused

Vijendra, Dholpur vs. ITO Ward-4, Bharatpur

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

ITA 743/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandiya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

noted that there is delay of 388 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit and mainly praying therein as under to condone the delay:- (a) That we have not received hardcopy of the order passed

Sahana Complex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office 4(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3327/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Digambar JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath

Section 250Section 6

time barring date and thus there is a delay of 74 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay and in support of it has filed an affidavit (duly notarized) explaining the cause for delay. And on perusal of the affidavit, it transpires ... consultant / advocate; and assessee should not be penalized for the delay caused by tax-consultant. Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. It is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order qua the assessee. According

Kasturbhai A. Patel, Sabarkantha vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Himatnagar

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

ITA 990/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 990/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

For Respondent: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 249Section 250Section 69A

also find that there is substantial delay of 259 days in filing the appeal before us. In support of which, an application for condonation of delay has been filed by way of an affidavit affirmed by the appellant herself, the contents whereof is as follows: “That I the above named

Chintan Bharatbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 678/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 678/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18)

For Respondent: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69

appellant, appellant had preferred an appeal before Hon'ble ITAT. There was bonafide reason for delay in filing appeal I request that if Condonation of delay for filing appeal is granted it will not cause any harm to the department and matter can be decided on the merit. I solemnly

Tarigonda Shavathali Khan, Kalakada vs. ITO., Ward No-1(1), Tirupathi

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

ITA 23/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.23/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Tarigonda Shavathali Vs. Income Tax Officer Khan, Chittoor Ward 1(1) Pan:Albpt1206F Tirupati (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Pradeep Raj Kuna, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Raj Kuna, CAFor Respondent: : Shri R. Kumaran, DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

Shavathali Khan 10. Referring to the above, the learned DR submitted that the learned CIT (A) NFAC has given justifiable reasons for not condoning the delay, therefore, the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed. 11. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders ... learned CIT (A) NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the explanation given by the assessee for condonation of delay is not acceptable. Page 6 of 8 ITA No 23 of 2024 Tarigonda Shavathali Khan 12. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme

M/S Mercantile Ventures Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 623/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.623/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Mercantile Ventures Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of- No.88, Spic House, Income Tax, Mount Road, Corporate Circle-4(1), Guindy, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. [Pan: Aaicm 6095 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri P.V.Sudhakar, Advocate : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of : 14.02.2024 Pronouncement

Section 263Section 53Section 53(1)Section 53(2)Section 53(3)

appeal. 3. At the outset, we find that appeal filed by assessee is barred by limitation for which necessary petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay has been filed. The learned counsel submitted that assessee could not file appeal within the time allowed under ... therefore delay may be condoned. Having heard both sides and considered the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that reasons given by assessee for not filing the appeal within the time allowed under the Act comes under reasonable cause as provided

Ramakrishna Nimmagadda, Vijayawada vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 30/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.29/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13) Venugopal Nimmagadda, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Vijayawada. Income Tax, Pan: Adapn 2791 A Circle-1(1), Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

delay of 1155 days in filing both the appeals before the Tribunal. Before us, the assessee has filed petition enclosing the affidavit seeking condonation of delay along with Medical Certificate and other documents. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative [AR] submitted that the delay in filing the appeals ... pleaded that the delay in filing both the appeals may be condoned. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly objected to the condonation of delay and stated that Sri Rama Krishna Nimmagadda was diagnosed ill and because of that reason the delay of 1155 days in filing both

Venugopal Nimmagadda, Vijayawada vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 29/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)