“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

DCIT Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Ronak Gems Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 1496/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit Central Circle- 2(4) M/S Ronak Gems Pvt Ltd Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, 311, Mehta Bhavan, Shop No. Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M.K. 5, Opp. Charni Road, Road Churchgate, Mumbai- 400 004 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aabcr 7550 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ms. Madhuri Tambe & Aishwarya Wanikar Revenue By : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ms. MadhuriFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 153A

held that there was sufficient cause was made by t cause was made by Ronak Gems Pvt Ltd 7 the appellant to seek condonation of delay of 248 days in filing the appellant to seek condonation of delay of 248 days in filing the appellant to seek condonation of delay ... This issue needs verification from the Directorate of assessee. This issue needs verification from the Directorate of computer system. The The issue of condonation of delay in filing return issue of condonation of delay in filing return of income u/s 153A of the Act of income u/s 153A

Nileshkumar Chhaganbhai Vasoya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(8), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 64/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat15 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Nileshkumar Chhaganbhai Vs. The Ito, Vasoya, Ward -3(2)(8), 186, Suvidha Row House, Near Surat. Yogi Chowk, Puna Simada Road, Surat – 395010. Pan : Amfpv9665F Appellant Respondednt

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 69

assessee is habitual in defaulting the hearing before the authorities. The ld Sr DR for the revenue submits that the application for the condonation of delay deserve to be dismissed. 5. On merit of the case, the ld. Sr. DR submits that assessee has neither attended the hearing before Assessing

Sher-E-Punjab Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31 (2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3150/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesher E Punjab Co- Vs Ito, Ward 31(2)(1) Operative Housing Kautilya Bhavan, Society Ltd Bandra Kurla Plot No.1724, Gaden Complex, Lane, Mahakali Caves Bandra (E) Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400051. Chakala Midc S.O Mumbai-400093. Pan/Gir No. : Aaeas8086P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. G. Menon. Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 80

Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai. 2. The Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, erred in not allowing the appellant's request for condonation of delay and thereby dismissing the appeal 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal

Jmd Corporation of India Limited, Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2241/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhjmd Corporation Of India Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Flat No. Ward 1(4), Ashar I. T. 204/205, Bldg No. B-2, Park, 6Th Floor, B Wing, Garden Enclave, Vasant Room No. 11, Road No. Vihar, Thane (W), 16Z, Wagle Industrial Maharashtra – 400610 Estate, Thane (W) 400604 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccj1370M Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Ruchi Rathod Respondent By : Ujjawal Kumar Chavhan Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Thane, Dated 03.08.2020 For A.Y. 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “A. The Appellant States & Submits That, The Assessing Officer & The Appellate Authority Erred In Creating & Upholding Addition Alleging Bogus Purchases Solely Based On The Investigation Of Third Party Investigating Agency (Sales Tax Department) & Without Making Any Further Inquiries To Substantiate Such Additions. B. The Appellant States & Submits That, The Assessing Officer & The Appellate Authority Erred In Ignoring The Fact That The Appellant Had Already Paid Mvat To The Sales Tax Department On The Impugned Transactions & Erred In Not Reducing The Said Amount From The Additions.

For Appellant: Ruchi RathodFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar Chavhan

Section 144Section 148

aforesaid grounds.” 2. There was a delay in filing this appeal by the assessee by 10 days. The assessee has requested condonation of delay vide letter dated 20.09.2023 due to ill health of the father of the director of the assessee company who was involved in the regular business activity

M/S Santhimadom Herbal City Trust, Ernakulam vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 921/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

reasons personal in nature. The same have not been disputed by the Revenue. Under the circumstances, we, accepting the assessee’s application for condonation of delay, admit the instant appeals. Hearing was accordingly proceeded with. ITA Nos.920-921/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2008-09 & 2009-10) Santhimadom Herbal City Trust v. Asst

M/S Santhimadom Herbal City Trust, Ernakulam vs. ACIT Central Circle -2, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 920/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

Parashavnath Digamber Jain Mandir Pishanari Madhiya Trust, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Jabalpur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 107/JAB/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 107 & 108/Jab/2023 (A.Y: 2016-17 & 2018-19) Parashavnath Digambar Vs. Ito (Exemption) Jain Mandir Pishanari Napier Town, Madhiya Trust, Jabalpur-482002, 01Madhiyaji, Madhyapradesh. Garha, Purva, Jabalpur-482003. Madhyapradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aabtp7900R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Manish Koshal, CA &For Respondent: Shri. ShivKumar.Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 255(6)

108/Jab/2023 Parashavnath Digamber Jain Mandir Pishanari Madhiya Trust.Jabalpur. appeals before the Hon’ble Tribunal and filed an application for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned are reasonable and the Ld.DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeals. 3. Since the issues involved

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

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

ITA 2489/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri S.N. AkolawalaFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chaugule

Section 143(1)Section 250

Operative Society Ltd. ITA no.2488/Mum./2023 ITA no.2489/Mum./2023 “1) The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal being filed late & without condoning the delay. 2) The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not not deciding appeal on merit for addition of Rs.1,78,01,881/- as a business income ... assessee has raised the following grounds:– “1). The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal being filed late & without condoning the delay 2). The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not not deciding appeal on merit for addition of Rs.1,66,96,810/- as a business income & also

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

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

ITA 2488/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri S.N. AkolawalaFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chaugule

Section 143(1)Section 250

Kailash Chandra Moondra, Sumerpur vs. ITO, Sumerpur

In the result, ITA No. 334/Jodh/2019 is allowed for statistical purpose and

ITA 339/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 202Section 250Section 250(6)

assessee filed the appeal with the delay of 240 days. The ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay for 240 days of the assessee is duly condoned. 3. In the outset, one appeal of the assessee is filed against the appeal

Kailash Chandra Moondra, Sumerpur vs. ITO, Sumerpur

In the result, ITA No. 334/Jodh/2019 is allowed for statistical purpose and

ITA 334/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 202Section 250Section 250(6)

M/S. Golden Tulip Hospitality Private Limited, Srinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Srinagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 265/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &

Section 150Section 250(6)Section 69A

were looked after by the director who was admitted in AAIMs hospital New Delhi for endovascular surgery. Following honourable apex court judgment on condonation of delay in filing the appeal on account of exceptional circumstances citation [1956] 29 ITR 607; the said delay is condoned, and appeal is admitted

M/S. Golden Tulip Hospitality Private Limited, Srinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Srinagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 264/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &

Section 150Section 250(6)Section 69A

Rahul Rai, Panipat vs. Prcit, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2701/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12 Rahul Rai Pr. Cit C/O Rra Taxindia, D -28, Karnal South Extension, Part-1, Vs. New Delhi Pan No.Aglpr9952R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/11/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Pr.Cit, Karnal Dated 30.12.2015 Framed U/S. 263 Of The Act. 2. The Sum & Substance Of The Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Pr.Cit, Karnal Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act & Further Erred In Treating The Assessment Order Dated 17.10.2013 As Erroneous & Pre Judicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 1109 Days.

Section 143(3)Section 263

judicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. The appeal is time barred by 1109 days. 4. In the application for condonation of delay assessee has stated that the appeal against the order passed pursuant to the order u/s. 263 of the Act was filed and the assessee was advised

Shri Ramesh Chander Gupta, Doda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Udhampur

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

ITA 268/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.268/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 144Section 250Section 250oSection 28Section 44ASection 69A

assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 255 days. The assessee filed an affidavit with petition for condonation of delay and placed that due to the non- cooperation from the consultant the appeal was filed with delay of 255 days. The appointed consultant Mr. Amit Gupta failed to communicate ... receiving of recovery notice. This is the reason for filing appeal in delay. The ld. DR had not made any objection against the condonation of delay for 255 days. Therefore, the delay for255 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: - “1. That

Shri Saroop Hari, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 4, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no

ITA 10/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

deserves to be set aside.” 3. The AR mentioned that the appeal is filed with a delay of 358 days. The petition for condonation of delay is filed and the delay is duly explained. The ld. AR mentioned that delay for 220 days was due to the assessee’s illness

Rohit Saxena, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer 4(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 566/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). Based On This Prayer The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Sinha (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 144Section 148

delay as well as non-compliance before the ld. CIT(A). Based on this prayer the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to condone the delay in bringing this appeal and also prayed to set aside the matter to the file of the ld. AO in the interest of justice ... this issue during the hearing of the appeal the ld. DR objected to assessee’s application for condonation of delay stating that the serving of the notice at the registered email is sufficient. The assessee was given five opportunity to plead the merits of the case but the assessee

Indu Mahajan, Amritsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Tax Circle-5, Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no

ITA 243/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

provisions of the law.” 3. The AR mentioned that the appeal is filed with a delay of 88 days. The petition for condonation of delay is filed and the delay is duly explained. The ld. AR mentioned that by wrong advice of consultant, the appeal before ITAT was filed online

Sardar Bahadur Sardar Balwant Singh Technical & Scientific Education Society, Karnal vs. ITO, Exemption, Ambala

In the result appeals preferred by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2030/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 2027/Del/2021, A.Y. 2010-11 Ita No. 2028/Del/2021, A.Y. 2011-12 Sardar Bahadur Sardar Vs. Acit, Balwant Singh Technical & Circle, Scientific Education Society, Karnal C/O Girish Aneja Ca, 796, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal Haryana-132001 Pan : Aaabs0957L Ita No. 2029/Del/2021, A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 2030/Del/2021, A.Y. 2013-14 Sardar Bahadur Sardar Vs. Ito, Balwant Singh Technical & Exemption, Scientific Education Society, Ambala C/O Girish Aneja Ca, 796, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal Haryana-132001 Pan : Aaabs0957L

Appeals filed by the Assessees. 4. There is a delay of 53 days in filing the above captioned appeals and the applications for condonation of delay have been filed in all the Appeals by the Assessee on the ground of Covid19 Situations and took shelter under order ... limitation dated 23/03/2020. ITA Nos. 2027,2028,2029 & 2030/Del/2021 Sardar Bahadur Sardar Balwant Singh 3 For the reasons stated in the applications for condonation of delay, the delay of 53 days in filing the present appeals are condoned. 5. At the outset, the Assessee's Representative submitted that

Sardar Bahadur Sardar Balwant Singh Technical & Scientific Education Society, Karnal vs. ITO, Exemption, Ambala

In the result appeals preferred by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2029/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2023AY 2012-13