← All Phrases

“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

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Khauna, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

ITA 204/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: None (Written Submissions)For Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

lackadaisical approach on its part. The Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) did not raise any objection to the seeking of condonation of delay by the respective assessee-appellants. After going through the respective applications, I am satisfied with the reasons leading to the delay and condone the same

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Khauna, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

ITA 203/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: None (Written Submissions)For Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

lackadaisical approach on its part. The Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) did not raise any objection to the seeking of condonation of delay by the respective assessee-appellants. After going through the respective applications, I am satisfied with the reasons leading to the delay and condone the same

Gramin Sewa Sahakri Samiti Maryadit, Dharsiwa, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2), Raipur

ITA 202/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: None (Written Submissions)For Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

lackadaisical approach on its part. The Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) did not raise any objection to the seeking of condonation of delay by the respective assessee-appellants. After going through the respective applications, I am satisfied with the reasons leading to the delay and condone the same

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Surat vs. Kush Corporation, Surat

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

ITA 357/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 93 & 94/Srt /2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16)

Section 133ASection 254(1)

find that there is delay of 16 days in filing CO by assessee. The ld AR for the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay in filing such Cross Objection. The ld AR for the assessee submits that assessee has received notice of appeal by revenue only ... that the assessee has good case on the grounds raised in its CO and is likely to succeed if the assessees plea in condoning the delay is allowed. 18. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR for the revenue has not contested the plea of condonation of delay

Mr Bimal H. Kiri, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1335/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012
For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal &For Respondent: Ms. R.M Brindha.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

framed the impugned order on the presumption that the appeal is filed belatedly without any application for condonation of delay of nearly 5 years and 10 months, considering the date of assessment order being 27.03.2014 without appreciating that the appellant received the assessment order only ... tests and considerations which had no bearing or nexus with issue at hand- Tribunal, therefore, erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone delay-Explanation placed on affidavit was not contested nor Court found that from such explanation, High Court could not arrive at conclusion that assessee

Ekalvya Gift Gaileries Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Faridabad

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and the issue of

ITA 866/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 142(1)

filing the same. 3.1. As submitted by learned AR, the order reflects that before the learned CIT(A) no separate application for condonation of delay was filed and instead of writing the reasons for delay in column no. 15 of form no. 35, it was mentioned that reasons for delay ... submitted at the time of hearing. Learned CIT(A) also observed that form no. 35 was not accompanied by any affidavit seeking the condonation of delay. 4. The Bench is of the considered opinion that certainly condonation of delay is not a matter of right and is a matter

Ekalavya Gift Gaileries Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Faridabad

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and the issue of

ITA 865/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 142(1)

filing the same. 3.1. As submitted by learned AR, the order reflects that before the learned CIT(A) no separate application for condonation of delay was filed and instead of writing the reasons for delay in column no. 15 of form no. 35, it was mentioned that reasons for delay ... submitted at the time of hearing. Learned CIT(A) also observed that form no. 35 was not accompanied by any affidavit seeking the condonation of delay. 4. The Bench is of the considered opinion that certainly condonation of delay is not a matter of right and is a matter

Mukeshbhai Kishorbhai Lakahni, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 20/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.20/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Hearing) Mukeshbhai Kishorbhai Lakahni, Vs. The Ito, 201, Patel Mansion, 20 Sadhana Ward – 3(3)(3), Soc. Opp. Jain D, Lambe Hanuman Surat Road, Varach Matawadi, Surat – 395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abppl9388Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

assessment year (AY) 2010-11, is barred by limitation by eighteen (18) days. Learned Counsel for the assessee, has moved a petition, for condonation of delay and explained the reasons for delay. The ld ITA.20/SRT/2023/AY.2010-11 Mukeshbhai Kishorebhai Lakhani Counsel stated that assessee had instructed his advocate/CA to take care ... occurred. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. The ld DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of assessee for condonation of delay and stated that delay may not be condoned. I note that delay has occurred because of mistake committed by the consultant of the assessee

Access Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 600/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.600/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Access Diamonds Pvt. Ltd बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) Office No. 15, Floor- Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mezzanine, Laxmidas Mumbai-400020. Khimji Market, 36/38, Kalbadevi Road, Vitthalwadi, Mumbai- 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahca0551C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/09/2023 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. Cit(A)-49, Mumbai Dated 30.06.2016 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 2366 Days [I.E, Six (6) Years & 05 Months] In Filing Of This Appeal Before This Tribunal. 3. First Of All Will Deal With The Application Filed By The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Manish Panwar For Condonation Of In-Ordinate Delay. It Is Noted That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Gold Bullion & Bars. For The Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income After Declaring Loss Of Rs. (8,932)/- On 27.09.2012. The Return Of Income Was Initially Processed U/S.143 (1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, The Case Of Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)

Tribunal in the case of Shri Pankaj Hiralal Marothi (infra) wherein the Hon’ble Courts have directed the lower authorities, to liberally condone the delay. Per-Contra, the Ld. DR opposed the admission of the appeal being delayed inordinately and wants me not to condone the delay/admit the appeal ... there was delay of 2366 days and judicial precedents/case laws of Hon’ble Apex Court were cited and discussed and thereafter the Tribunal condoned the delay by holding as under: - “3.1 The Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji 1987 taxmann.com 1072, analyzed the provisions

Vadilal Kunverji Gada, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-25(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1849/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2012-2013
Section 143(3)Section 54F

Shri Vadilal Kunverji Gada 3. At the outset, appeal of the assessee is time barred by 179 days. In the petition for condonation of delay accompanied with the affidavit of the assessee, it has been stated that the assessee neither at the time of hearing before

Shri Jaswant Singh, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 4 (3), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 220/ASR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 3 days is due to postal delay and it is negligible. The ld. DR had not made any objection against the condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay of 3 days is condoned. 3. At the outset, all the appeals are similar in nature and have common factual ground ... following grounds: “1. That the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has grossly erred in arbitrarily dismissing the assessee’s appeal by wrongly declining to condone the delay involved in filing of appeal. 2. That the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have condoned the delay appreciating the sufficient cause when

Shri Jaswant Singh, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -4, Phagwara

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 219/ASR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 3 days is due to postal delay and it is negligible. The ld. DR had not made any objection against the condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay of 3 days is condoned. 3. At the outset, all the appeals are similar in nature and have common factual ground ... following grounds: “1. That the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has grossly erred in arbitrarily dismissing the assessee’s appeal by wrongly declining to condone the delay involved in filing of appeal. 2. That the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have condoned the delay appreciating the sufficient cause when

Shri Jaswant Singh, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -4(3), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 218/ASR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 3 days is due to postal delay and it is negligible. The ld. DR had not made any objection against the condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay of 3 days is condoned. 3. At the outset, all the appeals are similar in nature and have common factual ground ... following grounds: “1. That the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has grossly erred in arbitrarily dismissing the assessee’s appeal by wrongly declining to condone the delay involved in filing of appeal. 2. That the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have condoned the delay appreciating the sufficient cause when

Shri Jaswant Singh, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -4, Phagwara

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 217/ASR/2023[2010-011]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Aug 2023AY 2010-011

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

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

delay of 3 days is due to postal delay and it is negligible. The ld. DR had not made any objection against the condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay of 3 days is condoned. 3. At the outset, all the appeals are similar in nature and have common factual ground ... following grounds: “1. That the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has grossly erred in arbitrarily dismissing the assessee’s appeal by wrongly declining to condone the delay involved in filing of appeal. 2. That the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have condoned the delay appreciating the sufficient cause when

M/S Construcationengineers, Srinagar vs. Assistan Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 141/ASR/2020[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Aug 2023AY 1998-99

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.141/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 1998-99 M/S Construction Engineers I.E. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Baghatbarzulla Income Tax Circle-3, [Pan: Aabfc7715P] Srinagar. (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 264

delay was extended till 28.02.2022 by the order of Hon’ble Apex Court. The ld. DR had not made any objection against the condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay of 1068 days is condoned. 3. The assessee raised the following grounds: “1. The Ld. CIT [Appeals) has erred in upholding

Parvati Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1911/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Parvati Gupta, Vs Ito, F-207, Alaknanda Apartment, Ward-2(2)(1), Rampuri, Chander Nagar, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201011. Pan-Aoapg2423B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K.Sampath & Shri V. Raja Kumar, Advocates Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2023

Section 144Section 147Section 148

present appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 30 days. The assessee has filed an application dated 08.08.2023 seeking condonation of delay of 30 days. An affidavit dated 04.08.2023 filed by the assessee in support of her contention. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made

Rivet Electricals Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- Faridabad, Faridabad

The Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1885/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Initiating The Proceeding As No Enquiry Was Made By Pr. Cit In Arriving At Conclusion Which Is Contrary In View Of The Jurisdictional & Other High Courts & The Apex Court. D. That Once The Sums Have Been Received Through Banking Channels & Complete Evidences Was Provided During The Course Of The Assessment, Suspicion Raised Purely On Assumptions Is Wholly Unsustainable In Law.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

course of hearing.” 3. There is a delay of 1025 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee filed an application for condoning the delay on the ground of the ‘Covid Situations’ by taking shelter under the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re: Cognizance for extension ... earlier counsel due to his serious illness on account of highly diabetic condition, unable to file the Appeal on time, therefore prayed for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the present appeal

Shri Devendrasinh Ramsinh Rana L/H of Late Shri Mahendra Ramsinh Rana, Bhgaruch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Bharuch

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

ITA 311/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.310 & 311/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Devendrasinh Ramsinh Rana, Vs. The Ito, Legal Heir Of Late Shri Mahendra Ward – 1(3), Ramsinh Rana, Bharuch At Post Kaswa, Taluka & District: Bharuch, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afzpr4608F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

No.311/SRT/2023, for AY.2012-13 is also barred by limitation by three (3) days. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee moved a petition for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. In this respect, the written submission, made by the ld Counsel, before the Bench, are as follows ... Request for condonation of delay in filing of appeal The appeal in ITA No. 310/Srt/2023 is delayed by 4 days and in ITA No. 311/Srt/2023 by 3 days. Affidavit explaining reasons for delay in filing of appeal has already been furnished on 08-08-2023. Brief facts due which appeal

Shri Devendrasinh Ramsinh Rana L/H of Late Shri Mahendra Ramsinh Rana, Bhgaruch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Bharuch

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

ITA 310/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.310 & 311/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Devendrasinh Ramsinh Rana, Vs. The Ito, Legal Heir Of Late Shri Mahendra Ward – 1(3), Ramsinh Rana, Bharuch At Post Kaswa, Taluka & District: Bharuch, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afzpr4608F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

No.311/SRT/2023, for AY.2012-13 is also barred by limitation by three (3) days. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee moved a petition for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. In this respect, the written submission, made by the ld Counsel, before the Bench, are as follows ... Request for condonation of delay in filing of appeal The appeal in ITA No. 310/Srt/2023 is delayed by 4 days and in ITA No. 311/Srt/2023 by 3 days. Affidavit explaining reasons for delay in filing of appeal has already been furnished on 08-08-2023. Brief facts due which appeal

Bhaktikishoredas Dharmtanyadasji Swami, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vapi

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

ITA 292/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhaktikishoredas I.T.O., Dharmtanyadasji Swami, Ward-1, Vs. Shri Swaminarayan Seva Trust, Vapi. Swaminarayan Gurukul, Gurukul Road, Chala, Vapi, Gujarat India-396191. Pan No. Bmgps 5746 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

date of communication, the Registry of this Tribunal calculated the delay of 43 days in filing appeal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of assessee. 3. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that there is a small ... going to be 2 Bhaktikishoredas Dharmtanyadasji Swami Vs ITO benefitted by filing appeal belatedly rather there is a chance that application for condonation of delay may not be accepted for some reasons. The ld. AR of the assessee prayed for condonation of delay and to allow her to make submission