“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy, Income Tax Office vs. Maragathamani Shanmugam, Karur

ITA 1628/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1628/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -2, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Maragathamani Shanmugam, Vs. 54A, Muthu Nagar, Sengunthapuram, Karur – 639 002. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan:Abkps-2816-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1629/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -2, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ramasamy Moolimangalam Vs. Vaishnava Priya, 33, B7 Adhisri Apartments, Kothari Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan:Adwpv-0050-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1631/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -1, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Karuppanna Gounder Palaniappa Vs. Gounder Mariappan, No.1, 80 Feet Road, Sengunthapuram, Karur – 639 002. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan:Agppm-2363-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. 11.11.2025 20.01.2026 :-2-:

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69

find that the aforesaid appeals (ITA Nos.1628 & 1629/Chny/2025) are filed with a delay of 3 days. The AO filed affidavits for condonation of delay stating the reasons for belated filing of the appeals. On hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavits, we find the reasons stated

Advaya Charitable Foundation (Now Btg Advaya Charitable Foundation), Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 6809/MUM/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani,ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)

Section 12ASection 8

6809/MUM/2025 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the саsе, the Ld. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai was not justified in not condoning the delay in the filing of the application in Form 10AB of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for regularization of the Provisional Registration of the Appellant under ... inadvertent oversight on the part of earlier tax consultant and the staff was unaware about the compliances of law. The applicant requested for condonation in delay in filing of Form 10AB. However, the ld.CIT(E) rejected the plea and observed that the 'due date' of filing application on or before

Jashwant Shah Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5082/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethjashwant Shah Charitable Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Trust, A-Aidun Building, 1St (Exemptions), Mumbai. Room No.601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill Dhobi Talao Lane, John Crasto Lane, Mumbai- Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Dr. 400002. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026. Pan/Gir No:Aaatj0479Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jitendra Singh, Advocate Respondent By Shri Vivek Perampurna (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.02.2026

Section 12ASection 234BSection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)

days. It is therefore, submitted that the delay was not because of any mala fide intention. Hence, the Ld. AR request to condone the delay. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT (DR) of the revenue supported the order of the CIT(E). He submitted that there ... Ignorance of law cannot be an excuse. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the submission of the appellant in respect of condonation of delay. 6.1 Be that as it may, the appellant has also incurred religious expenses of Rs.5,05,000/- (10.83%), Rs.72

Extension Systems Foundation International, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

ITA 4390/MUM/2025[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Ms. Aashi NarayanFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 12ASection 8

have been duly annexed with the appeal memorandum. The Ld. DR did not raise any serious objection to the assessee’s request for condonation of delay. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that sufficient cause existed for the delay of 430 days in filing the appeal

Vidya Buildcon Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

ITA 4654/MUM/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Being both the appeals are of the same assessee, therefore are taken up for adjudication under this common order. 2. Condonation of delay: At the very initiation of hearing, the ld. Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) of the assessee, submitted that the aforesaid appeals are delayed by 17 days. To explain

Vidya Buildcon Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 8 (3) (3), Aayakar Bhavan

ITA 4650/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Shri Mandorana Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandli Limited, Village-Mandorana vs. Income Tax Officer, Veraval

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 872/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. (DR)

Section 147

Bench that both appeals filed by assessee, are barred by limitation by 80 days. In both the appeals, assessee filed respective petitions for condonation of delay stating the reasons for delay. In both the petitions, for condonation of delay, the contents and facts and reasons for delay are identical ... justice, delay may be condoned. 5. On the other hand, Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue submitted that reasons explained by the assessee for condonation of delay, are not sufficient reasons, hence, delay should not be condoned and appeals may be dismissed. ITA Nos. 870 & 872/Rjt/2025 A.Ys

Shri Mandorana Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandli Limited, Jnd-Veraval vs. Income Tax Officer, Veraval

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 870/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. (DR)

Section 147

Shiwaji Pd. Jaiswal, Guwahati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Guwahati

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

ITA 47/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) explaining the reason for delay in filing the appeal of 1862 days delay which is as under: "Dear Sir, Sub: Prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal for the assessment year 2018-19 against the Assessment Order issued U/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 43B

Appeals) – 1, Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)] dated 11.12.2024, DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1071104128(1) challenging the appellate order for not condoning the delay of 1862 days and not deciding the issue on merits. 2 Shiwaji Pd. Jaiswal 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that ... explaining the reason for delay in filing the appeal of 1862 days delay which is as under: “Dear Sir, Sub: Prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal for the assessment year 2018-19 against the Assessment Order issued U/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. PAN: ASEPS6242E

Deepak Shrawan Budhia, Mumbai vs. Pr. Commissioner of I.T., Patna-1, Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 365/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 263Section 40

time barred by 68 days before the ITAT in this regard, the assessee has given explanation which is as under: “Sub: Application for Condonation of Delay in filing of Appeal against the Order- in-Original bearing DIN & Order No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024- 25/1075332349(1) dated 31/03/2025 Dear Sir, We have filed ... period and the appellant had “reasonable cause” then the delay may be condoned. The same judgment was also relied by the assessee. We condone the delay and taking up for adjudication. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Ld. Pr.CIT called the assessment record and observed