“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

Ellora Inratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

hearing, the Ld. Counsel at the outset pointed that the present appeal is filed belatedly by about 230 days. An application for condonation of delay dated 14/09/2021 was adverted to in this regard to demonstrate existence of mitigating circumstances. It was essentially pointed out that the delay is attributable

Chandrakant Gulabbhai Patel, Valsad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Valsad

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

ITA 475/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.475/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Chandrakant Gulabbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Near Ramjimandir, Utadi Road, Ward-1, Valsad Vs At & Post Dungri, Valsad-396375 Nilkanthpatelatel@Gmail.Com Pan No: Anupp 8675 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that no application for condonation of delay along with appeal / Form-35 was filed before NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) though NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) issued several notices for making proper compliance. The Ld.Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that ... such fact was not substantiated. No explanation regarding delay of 35 days in filing of appeal was filed. The NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) accordingly not condone the delay in filing of appeal and consequently appeal was not admitted, resultantly dismissed. 5. Before me Ld.AR for the assessee vehemently submits that assessee

Bhavin Arunbhai Patel, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vapi

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 456/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.456/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Bhavin Arunbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Parvassa Road, Mota Waghchhipa, Ward – 1, Kila Pardi, Valsad – 396001, Vapi Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Arypp2459F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

that appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by two hundred eight (208) days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay is reproduced below ... assessee begs to prefer this application for condonation of delay in relation to Appeal filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre dated 11.10.2022. There is a delay of 208 days in filing the appeal before Honorable Tribunal against the order passed

Navrang Basant Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mum vs. ITO Ward-17(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1353/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Ito 17(2)(4) Room No. 112, 1 S T Floor, Navrang Basant Co-Operative Housing Society Limited Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Basant Apartments, Cuffe Parade, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Mumbai-400 005 Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaan1511E

For Appellant: Shri Siddhant Khopkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Adhok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143Section 234BSection 4Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80p(2)(d)

affidavit, the assessee does not derive any benefit by not filing the appeal in time before the coordinate bench and further, whenever the condonation of delay is required to be considered, pedantic approach should not be taken. Accordingly, it was prayed that as delay is nominal, same May be condoned ... Supreme Court in case of Collector of Land Acquisition V. MST Khatiji & Others 167 ITR 471, wherein it has been held that in condonation of delay prayer, pedantic approach should Navrang Basant Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.; A.Y. 2017-18 not be adopted and the appeal should be decided

Dheerajsingh Omprakashsingh Mohnia, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3280/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Dheerajsingh Income Tax Officer, Omprakashsingh Mohnia, Int Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Room No.1627, 16Th Floor, C/O. Vaish Associates, 106, Peninsula Centre, Vs. Air India Building, Dr. S.S. Rao Road, Nariman Point, Parel, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Amvpm6622M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Soni, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 69A

willful but due to unavoidable circumstances. 2. However, on the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue opposed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the late filing of appeals in this case is apparently malafide due to callous attitude of the assessee and prayed ... mother who was hospitalized, the delay in filing the appeal appears to be not willful or intentional. We find it a sufficient to condone the delay keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Land Acquisition Collector vs. MST Katiji & Others

Thekkumbhagam Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Idukki vs. The ITO Ward 1, Thodupuzha

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 166/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

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

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

Section 143(3)Section 147

same, strictly speaking, cannot per se be regarded as a sufficient cause. We yet regard it as a fit case for condonation of delay in the conspectus of the case. The orders received on email, are generally missed by the bank staff where the Thekkumbhagam SCB Ltd. v. ITO working

Institute of Management and Information Science, Bhubaneswar vs. CIT Exemption, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 262/CTK/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Rajesh Kumarita Nos.259 To 262/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2017-18 To 2020 18 To 2020-2021 Institute Of Management & Institute Of Management & Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Cit (Exemptions), Information Information Science, Science, Swagat Swagat Hyderabad Vihar, Bankuala, Bhubaneswar Vihar, Bankuala, Bhubaneswar- 751 002 Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaati 2941 Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr

Section 119Section 119(2)(b)

Form 10BB for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2020-21. The assessee was requested to furnish certain information justifying its application for condonation of delay. As there was no sufficient reason which prevented the assessee from filing the same within the due date, the ld CIT(E) rejected

Institute of Management and Information Science, Bhubaneswar vs. CIT Exemption, Hydeabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 261/CTK/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr

Section 119Section 119(2)(b)

Institute of Management and Information Science, Bhubaneswar vs. CIT Exemption, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 260/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr

Section 119Section 119(2)(b)

Institute of Management and Information Science, Bhubaneswar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 259/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr

Section 119Section 119(2)(b)

Sibasankar Sahu, - Deogarh vs. PCIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.217/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sibasankar Sahu, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Arnapurna Store, At: Bania Sahi, Po/Ps: Deogarh Dist-Deogarh-768108 Pan No. :Apeps 1706 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 18.03.2022, Passed In Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1041011837(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 199 Days. It Was The Submission That The Delay Was On Account Of Medical Treatment Of The Assessee’S Father & Assessee’S Wife. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Trading Of Potatoes, Onion & Garlic In The Remote Area Of The District Of Deogarh, Odisha. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Was Not Well- Versed In Taxation Issues & On Account Of The Medical Treatment Of The 2 Assessee’S Father As Also The Assessee’S Wife, The Assessee Could Not File

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 144ASection 263Section 44A

also the assessee’s wife, the assessee could not file the appeal within the time. The assessee has also filed necessary affidavit for condonation of delay of 199 days. Ld. CIT-DR has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal

M/S Classicon Builders India Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Patna

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 497/PAT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 43C

Registry has pointed out that the appeal of the assessee is time barred by 80 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay and submitted that the order was served upon the assessee electronically because the Department was gradually moving towards e-assessment and the notices were ... Builders India Pvt. Limited was not taken as a strategy to litigate with the Department. It is a bonafide error and accordingly we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is Private Limited Company engaged

Dushkal Go Sewa Samiti, Sumerpur vs. ITO (Exemption), Jodhpur

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

ITA 9/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Section 11Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

vide letter dated 07.10.2019. 7. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in arbitrarily ignored the uploaded Audit Report (Form 10B), application for condonation of delay and the bonafide belief of the assessee-trust. 8. Appellant also reserves her rights to add/ alter any grounds of appeal till the disposal ... reminder application dated 18.01.2020 and requested to quash the Dushkal Go Sewa Samiti vs. ITO(E) demand. The assessee-trust filed application for Condonation of Delay in online filing Form-10B on 12.03.2020 before the Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)but the same was also got rejected without providing

Dushkal Go Sewa Samiti, Sumerpur vs. ITO (Exemption), Jodhpur

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

ITA 5/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Section 11Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

Umed Hospital Medicare Relief Society, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, CPC /ITO, Exemption Wardm, Bangalore. Jodhpur

ITA 175/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 288

exercise of the powers conferred u/s 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Board decided that where the application for condonation of delay has been filed and the return of income has been filed on or before 31st March of respective assessment years the Board directed ... condone the delay admitted to such belated such application for condonation of delay in filing such Form/ return of income for the assessment year for the assessment year 2016-17,2017-18 & 2018-19. The bench noted that in the order of the ld. CIT(A) at page following

Bharatiya Jain Sanghatana, Kota vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 520/JPR/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Oct 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT-DR

Section 12A

assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed a condonation application dated 09-08-2023 praying therein hereunder to condone the delay. ‘’1. An appellant is a Registered Trust namely BharatiyajainSanghatanakota, (BJS) created on 16/12/2018 as an ancillary body of Bharatiya Jain Sanghatana Pune. 2. After obtaining provisional ... came to access the portal, we noticed the whole facts of the case and hence we request before your honor and pray to condone the delay in filing of an appeal. 6. The primarycontact email id given on the portal isca.arpitjain1985@gmail.com, but no email of notice and order was receivedon

Saloni Singhal Khandelwal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 67(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 999/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri KVS Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 193(9)Section 199

original proceedings in accordance with law if so legally advised. It shall be open to the assessee to raise an appropriate plea for condonation of delay owing to the ongoing rectification proceedings before the appellate authority. 11.5 In terms of delineations noted above, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Welgrow Hotels Concepts (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-78(4), Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1870/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI G.S.PANNU (President), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 194Section 200(1)Section 201Section 201(1)

grounds of appeal as above.” 3. There is a delay of 115 days in filing both the Appeals. An application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee wherein contended that, the reasons for delay in filing the above appeals are due to oversight at the end of the Counsel ... placed an affidavit of one Mr. Himanshu Sood confirming the averments made by the assessee. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 115 days in filing the above captioned appeals are condoned. Page 2 of 6 ITA Nos.1869 & 1870/Del/2023 Welgrow Hotels Concepts

Welgrow Hotels Concepts (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-78(4), Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1869/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI G.S.PANNU (President), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 194Section 200(1)Section 201Section 201(1)

Max Maintenance Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), New Delhi

Appeals are allowed

ITA 2209/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 37Section 40

reasons cited. That entitles assessee an opportunity to be heard on merits for the ends of justice. Accordingly, dismissal of application for condonation of delay by the learned CIT(A) cannot be sustained. 9. Consequently, the grounds raised qua this issue in the respective appeals are allowed. The appeals