“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

Rushabh Precision Bearings, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3270/MUM/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3270/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Rushabh Precision Bearings बिधम/ Acit-7(2) Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Fida Mansion, 2Nd Floor, 4, Marg, Mumbai-400020. Babijan Street, Nagdevi, Mumbai-400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr5214N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mandar Vaidya Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Ex-Parte Order Dated 03.12.2007 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) For The Ay. 2003-04. 2. At The Outset, We Note That This Tribunal Had Dismissed This Appeal By An Ex-Parte Order Qua Assessee On 21.06.2022 Which Has Been Recalled By This Tribunal By Order Dated 24.04.2023 (Ma. No.66/Mum/2023).

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)

Section 250

High Court of Bombay recalled its earlier winding up order vide order dated 05.02.2018, and assessee immediately filed appeal, therefore, prays for condoning the delay of seven years. The Ld. DR opposes the condonation of delay by stating that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was dated ... there is per-se considerable delay in filing of Appeal. We note that the present appeal is filed along with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The condonation application is supported by an affidavit of Shri Rajesh Vora, Chairman and Managing Director of the assessee

J.C.B Welfare Society, Palwal vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Faridabad

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

ITA 2574/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] J.C.B. Welfare Society, Vs Ito, Near Bagla Nursing Home, Ward-1(3), Agra Chowk, Palwal, Faridabad. Haryana-121102. Pan-Aaaaj7547A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Sweta Bansal, Ca & Shri Sudharshan Roy, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2023

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

present appeal is barred by 46 days. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the application seeking condonation of delay. An affidavit dated 25.10.2023 by Shri Krishan Sharma, Director of the J.C.B. Welfare Society on behalf of the assessee has been filed, stating that

Dharmendra, Sambhal vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Chandausi

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

ITA 2404/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Dharmendra, Vs Cit(A), S/O-Shri Prempal, Village- Nfac, Income Tax Saijna Muslim Gunnaur, Department, Delhi. Sambhal-243722. Pan-Bjkpd6962J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K.Sampath & Shri V.Raja Kumar, Advocates Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2023

Section 144

present appeal is barred by 279 days. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the application seeking condonation of delay. An affidavit by the Advocate on behalf of the assessee has been filed, stating that due to his illness, he could not contact the assessee

Ayursidhha Inc, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Gurgaon

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

ITA 4210/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Ayursidhha Inc., Vs Ito, V-17/18, Dlf Phase-Iii, Ward 1(12), Gurgaon, Haryana. Gurgaon. Pan-Aamfa9665K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Tarun Tulsani, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 801CSection 80I

present appeal is barred by 26 days. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the application seeking condonation of delay. 4. Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue opposed this submission of the assessee. 5. However, looking to the averment made in the application which

M/S.Pathanmthitta Dist. Co-Op Bank Ltd, Pathanamthitta vs. The DCIT, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable and, in any case, without merit

ITA 431/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daspathanamthitta District Dy. Cit, Circle- 1 Co-Op Bank Ltd. Thiruvalla Near Ksrtc Bus Stand Vs. Mylapara Road Pathanamthitta 689645 [Pan:Aabfp9182H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Aswin Gopakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

inability to do so. The ITANo. 431/Coch/2018(AY: 2014-15) Pathanamthitta District Co-op Bank Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT two ingredients for condonation of delay; which could only be results of positive, affirmative action on the part of the adjudicating authority, i.e.: - (a) proof of due diligence; (b) proof ... negligence are completely absent in the instant case. The case law in the matter is legion. We, accordingly, find no reason for condonation of delay and admit the instant appeal. 3. We may, nevertheless, also, and without prejudice, consider the assessee’s case on merits. The reason is two-fold

Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6, Vapi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 629/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628 & 629/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh Income Tax Officer, 303, Imran Mension, Opp. Vs. Ward-6, Vapi, Income Tax Office, Suman Auto, Godal Nagar, Room No.808, Fortune Saquare- Vapi-396191 Ii, Daman Road, Chala Vapi- 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awlps 0991 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69ASection 80C

barred by limitation by 489 days each. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay, in both these appeals. The contents of the petition for condonation of delay filed by the assessee, in case of appeal in ITA No.628/SRT/2023, are as follows: “I, the undesigned ... Department and take his advice. By following his advice I have engaged Shri Rajesh M Upadhyay to file appeal with a prayer for condonation of delay as well as to represent my case before the Honourable Tribunal. I made payment of ITAT Appeal fees of Rs.10

Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6, Vapi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 628/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69ASection 80C

Nitin A. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, 19(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 667/MUM/2023[ 2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023

For Appellant: Shri Tushar NagoriFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

appeal. According to the Registry, the appeal was instituted on 12/04/2023 after a delay 595 days. In the affidavit supporting the application seeking condonation of delay, the Appellant has explained that there was an inadvertent delay in filing the appeal as the Appellant only got knowledge about the order dated ... therefore delay in filing the appeal should not be condoned. 7.1. We have heard both the sides in relation to application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others

Punjab National Bank, Karnal vs. ITO (TDS), Panchkula

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

ITA 2414/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 Punjab National Bank Vs. Ito(Tds) Karnal Panchkula (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. V. Rajakumar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Dated 26.05.2023 By Nfac, Delhi Pertaining To A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Read As Under :- 1. Dismissing Appeal Against Order Passed U/S 201 & 201(1A) Of The Act Without Providing Due & Adequate Opportunity Of Hearing:

Section 201

deduct tax after submission of Form 15G/15H. 3. The appeal is late by 31 days. We have gone through the application for the condonation of delay and are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal on time, therefore, the delay

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Murli Kumar Agrawal (HUF), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 161/RPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 161/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Murli Kumar Agrawal (Huf) Konark Industries Paragaon, Paragaon, Nayapara, Rajim-493 881 Pan : Aaehm7729L ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)

staff, tracking of orders received from NFAC. The Ld. DR in support of his aforesaid contention has filed an application dated 30.08.2022 seeking condonation of delay, which reads as under: “2. In the case of Murli Kumar Agrawal, Raipur PAN: AEHM7729L for A.Y.2013-14 Order u/s 250 was passed by NFAC ... tracking of orders received from NFAC could not be possible in due date. 3. It is therefore, request your good self to kindly Condon the delay in filling the appeal and admit to file this appeal.” The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 29 days in filing

Bhikhubhai Keshavbhai Mistry, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(5), Bharuch

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 410/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhikhubhai Keshavbhai Mistry, I.T.O., 1, Kabirgam, Valiya, Ankleshwar, Ward-1(5), Vs. Bharuch, Gujarat-393135. Bharuch. Pan No. Apnpm 1810 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69A

Keshavbhai Mistry Vs ITO there is a delay of 6 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay in filing appeal. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the assessee received order of ld. CIT(A) on 04/04/2023 ... learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submits that the Bench may take appropriate decision on the application of condonation of delay. 4. I have considered the contention of both the parties and perused the record carefully. As recorded above, there is delay of only 6 days

Vijayarama Gajapathi Co-Operative Sugars Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 2/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Sri Vijayarama Gajapathi Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Co-Operative Sugars Ltd. Income Tax Bheemasinghi Circle-3 (1) Spo Sainik School Visakhapatnam Vizianagaram [Pan : Aacts1696N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhkar Aves, Sr.AR

/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/1040766430(1) dated 15.03.2022, for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13 with the delay of 234 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay and the Ld.AR submitted that the order of the 2 I.T.A. No.2/Viz/2023, A.Y. 2012-13 Sri Vijayarama Gajapathi Co-operaive Sugars Ltd., Vizianagaram Ld.CIT ... neither intentional nor deliberate. Therefore, pleaded the Tribunal to 3 I.T.A. No.2/Viz/2023, A.Y. 2012-13 Sri Vijayarama Gajapathi Co-operaive Sugars Ltd., Vizianagaram condone the delay of 234 days in filing the appeal and to afford one more opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) in the interest

Tin Time Consultancy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2810/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ms Padmavathy Stin Time Consultancy Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1) Pvt Ltd., (Successor Of 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Avdharna Trading Pvt Kalyan West, Ltd)302,Cfc Bldg No. 1, Maharashtra-421301. 3Rd Floor, Asmeeta Textile Park, Addl. Kalyan Bhiwandi Industrial Area, Village Kon, Bhiwandi, Maharashtra-421311. Pan/Gir No. : Aaica4811G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Gohil.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.D Chougule.Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68Section 69A

Time Consultancy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 2. There is a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the application for condonation of delay was filed. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the application are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay

Shri Jayesh Chandulal Shah, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 50/SRT/2020[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Dec 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.50/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2000-01) (Physical Hearing) Jayesh Chandulal Shah, The Ito, Vs. A-74, Saify Society, Near Jain Ward – 3(3)(2), Temple, L. H. Road, Surat Surat – 395006. Old Jurisdiction Ito, Ward- 9(2), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adzps8832Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)

assessee, for Assessment Year 2000-01, is barred by limitation by 3793 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. To explain, the ITA.50/SRT/2020/AY.2000-01 Jayesh Chandulal Shah delay, the assessee has filed the affidavit. The contents of the assessee`s petition for condonation ... appeals of the family, before the CIT(A) and Tribunal therefore it is a not a ITA.50/SRT/2020/AY.2000-01 Jayesh Chandulal Shah sufficient reason to condone the delay. The ld. DR also pointed out that delay should not be condoned on the reasons that the assessee’s case relates to protective addition

Johari Lal Shivraj Gotam Bohra Charitable Trust, Pali vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 190/JODH/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Dec 2023AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

Assessment Year.: 2023-24 2 2. The AR mentioned that the appeal is filed with a delay of 148 days. The petition for condonation of delay with affidavit, are filed and the delay is duly explained. The ld. AR mentioned that by technical error in fresh filing of appeal, there

Johari Lal Shivraj Gotam Bohra Charitable Trust, Pali vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 189/JODH/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Dec 2023AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Donar, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

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

ITA 341/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty

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

fairness be condoned. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 493 days involved in filing of the appeal ... multi- facet contentions that have not legs to stand upon. 15. At this stage, I may herein observe that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained