“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

Ankit Kalash, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 266/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 266/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Vimal AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

delay of 102 days. Ld. AR of the assessee regarding the delay, has furnished before us an application for 2 Ankit Kalash condonation of delay a/w affidavit signed by the assessee explaining the reasons for delay. The application for condoning the delay and affidavit are extracted as under: 3 Ankit ... Kalash 4 Ankit Kalash 3. After submissions of the aforesaid request by the assessee, Ld. AR, further submitted that the condonation of delay may be allowed in view of the judgment in the case of Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax is reported

The Indian Missionary Movement, Kawardha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Kawardha, Kawardha

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

ITA 199/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 199/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year:2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Jain & R.B. Doshi, CA’sFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 253(5)Section 69A

with a delay of 13 days. Ld. AR of the assessee, explaining the reason for delay has submitted that an application requesting the condonation of delay together with an affidavit was filed by the assessee a/w appeal memo. On perusal of the said request for condonation of delay

Rajasree Motors Pvt Ltd, Cochin vs. ITO Corporate Ward 2(2), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1004/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Revenue, or otherwise any counter-affidavit furnished by it. Under the circumstances, we find the delay as justifiably explained and, accordingly, condoning the delay, admit the appeal. 4. On merits, as apparent from the mere browse of the impugned order – also referred to by us for the purpose of condonation

Harmony Yarns Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 348/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.348/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Harmony Yarns Private Vs. The Pcit-1, Limited, Surat Plot-65, 1St Floor Subhash Nagar Society, Ghod Dod Road, Nr. Ram Chowk, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach5895F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Airiju Jaikaran, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/10/2023 23/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

payment of challan was made vide online mode only and therefore your honour may 11 ITA No.348/SRT/2023/AY.2018-19 Harmony Yarns Pvt. Ltd. consider condonation of delay for the same. Further even if we take the amendment on Section 36(1)(va) in regards to due date of payment, the same

M/S. Vinayak Agro Industries, Rourkela vs. ITO Ward-4, Rourkela

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

ITA 166/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri N.K.Rout, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

Both the appeals of the assessee are delayed by 9 days each for which the assessee has filed necessary with affidavits for condonation of delay. In view of the reasons mentioned in the affidavit for delay and as the ld. Sr. DR has not raised any serious objections, the delay

M/S. Vinayak Agro Industries, Rourkela vs. ITO Ward-4, Rourkela

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

ITA 107/CTK/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri N.K.Rout, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

General Lifescience Distributors Gmbh, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed in the enumerated terms, for statistical purposes

ITA 2422/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Narendra Kumar Choudhry () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

shortcomings and nonavailability of a Director. 14. That I filed an appeal manually before the income tax authorities along with a letter to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 15. That during the period of detention, I was having no access to telephone or internet and therefore could ... proceedings and the legal remedies to be pursued. 17. That thereafter, an appeal was filed electronically on 22.12.2022 along with an application to condone the delay due to the aforesaid reasons. 18. Hence, this affidavit is being made in support of my application to condone the delay in filing

Voluntary Medcare Society, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer ( Exemptions) Ward, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 262/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Finance Department of Revenue 3I.T.A. No.262/Asr/2023 5 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi, the 19th February, 2020 Sub: Condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in filing of Return of Income ... Form No. 9A and Form No. 10. -Reg, Representations have been received seeking condonation of delay in filing Return of Income by the Charitable Institutions for the Assessment Year 2016-17 onwards on the grounds of hardship. The Board has issued Circulars authorizing the Commissioners of Income Tax to admit

Mohd. Shafi Naushahi, Nagpur vs. Commissioner of Inocme Tax -IV, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 129/NAG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.129/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Mohd. Shafi Naushahi, The Commissioner Of Plot No.194, Shahai Manzil, Vs Income Tax-Iv, Nagpur. Gumgaon Road, Dongaragaon, Nagpur. Pan: Adgpn2947L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22 /11/2023

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263

passed the order under section 263 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order under section 263, the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. Condonation of Delay : 3. There is a delay in filing appeal of 1833 days. Assessee filed condonation application along with an affidavit. The Paragraph

Parasuram Kesari, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 40A(3)

affidavit filed before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the assessee wherein the assessee sought for condonation of delay, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC found that there is no any sufficient and reasonable cause for filing the appeal with a delay of 570 days ... NFAC, dated 30/06/2022 is not in accordance with the provisions of law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay of 570 days in filing the appeal when the delay was explained with cause vide petition filed before the Ld. CIT(A) along with affidavit

Parasuram Kesari, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 189/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

with a delay of 153 days. 3. Before the Ld. CIT (A) the assessee filed an affidavit with a request to condone the delay wherein it was explained that due to multiple health issues the assessee could not pursue his case with the Authorized Representative and therefore the appeal ... days before the First Appellate Authority. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the submissions of the assessee with regard to condonation of delay and observed that the reasons explained by the assessee for belated filing of the appeal are vague even though it is not coupled with

Srinivasa Rao Arnepalli, Krishna Dist vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada

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

ITA 153/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.153/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Srinivasa Rao Arnepalli Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Bhavishya Edible Oil Refinery Income Tax 140/1, Kodurupadu Vijayawada Bapulapadu Mandalam Krishna Dist. [Pan : Aftpa9285K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rama MurthyFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

Hearing : 17.10.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 22.11.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member : Condonation of Delay : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [PCIT] vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/REV/F/REVS/2021-22/1040915192(1) dated 16.03.2022, arising ... short ‘Act’) dated 25.12.2019 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 with the delay of 368 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay, submitting that the order of the Ld.PCIT, Vijayawada dated 16.03.2022 was served on the assessee on 16.03.2022 and the due date for filing

Rokadiya Wahid, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 128/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 127 & 128/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Rokadiya Wahid C/O. Mohd. Dilawar Rokadia, Mahalaxmi Enclave, Sihawa Road, Dhamtari-493 773 Pan : Acfpw4546A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

Raipur ITA Nos. 127 & 128/RPR/2023 5. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) had raised objection to the seeking of the condonation of delay in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant. 6. On a careful perusal of the facts leading to the delay in filing ... case of M/s. Phoenix Mills Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT in ITA No.6240/MUM/2007 for A.Y.1999-2000, dated 23.03.2020, had held 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

Rokadiya Wahid, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 127/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

Everest Grande Commercial Premises Co-Op Society Limited, Mumbai vs. CPC ITO, 24 (1) (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2487/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & S Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2487/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Everest Grande Commercial बिधम/ Cpc/Ito-24(1)(1) 3Rd Floor, Piramal Premises Vs. Cts-46/34, Plot 3A Everest Chambers Lalbaugh, Grande Society, Mahakali Mumbai-400034. Caves Road, Andheri Kurla Road Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaae5455A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dinesh Kukreja Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Meshram (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 19.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Admitting The Same On Grounds Of Delay.

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh KukrejaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

even though, the aforesaid facts and explanation/reason were brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without admitting the same. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 4. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that ... page 44 to 68 PB], clearly shows that a lenient view deserves to be taken for the purposes of deciding the plea of condonation of delay. The assessee has been able to demonstrate the delay was not deliberate in as much as this particular issue regarding exemption

Pranav Trust, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 177/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 177/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Pranav Trust Baniya Para, Durg-491 001 (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Aabtp9694C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 161(1)Section 164Section 164(1)

fairness to be condoned. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') did not seriously object to the seeking of condonation of delay by the assessee appellant. 4. I have considered the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant ... trustee, viz., Shri Pranav Kaser the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time period, I have no hesitation in condoning the delay of 9 days involved in filing of the same. 5. Controversy involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass, i.e., as to whether

Hillway Sadhna Co Op Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 2675/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri K Shivram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Joginder Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80P(2)(d)

therefore, the assessee filed fresh set appeals on March 3rd 2020 before the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone the delay and dismiss the appeal stating that the assessee on the same issue had already withdrawn the ground in the earlier appeal before ... appeal is due to the unavoidable circumstances as mentioned in the affidavit. 5. The ld. DR on the other hand vehemently opposed condoning the delay of appeal filed before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the assessee has submitted

Amrit Rajpal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 29(8), New Delhi

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

ITA 2766/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Manu Monga, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR

been received by the assessee as it was sent to the old address. We find that, the reasons given by the assessee for condonation of delay are acceptable and hold that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue by remanded the matter to the file

Shri Islam Patel, Indore vs. The ITO 5 (5), Indore

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

ITA 111/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoshri Islam Patel Ito, 5(5) 13, Mayakhedi Jhalariya Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Dpcpp 7925 D Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023

Section 144Section 147Section 54BSection 54F

dated 20.01.2020 therefore, there is a delay of about three years in filing the present appeal. The assesse has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assesse. Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that the assesse filed the appeal before ... that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR has not seriously objected to the condonation of delay. 4. Having considered the rival submissions and carful perusal of the contents of the application for condonation of delay as well as affidavit filed

Jitendra Amarlal Nagpal, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commisioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 2389/MUM/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejitendra Amarlal Nagpal V. Ito – Central Circle – 8(4) 396, Swan Lake, 14Th Road Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Khar (W), Mumbai – 400052 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaapn7150J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 249(1)

filed by the assessee with a delay of 55 days and assessee also filed a petition in this regard and prayed for condonation of delay. Assessee filed petition for condonation of delay and submitted as under: - “Sub: application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal before ... relying on my consultants delay may be condoned and that the appeal may be heard on merit.” 3. Ld. DR objected for the condonation of delay and however, he has not filed any submissions against the petition as well as the facts described in the above petition