“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

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Rura, Kanpur Dehat vs. CPC, Bangalore ITO (Exemption), Kanpur

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

ITA 101/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 249(2)(c)Section 250

case of Senior Bhonsle Estate (HUF) vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2019] 419 ITR 732 (SC), to hold that for condonation of delay, the litigant had to show, ‘sufficient cause’. However, in the present case, he noted that the assessee had not made any submissions for the justifying

Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal, Barabanki vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range -5, Lucknow

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

ITA 130/LKW/2021[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 253(5)Section 68

very outset, it is noted that the appeal is delayed by 66 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay under section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act wherein it has been stated that the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1 was received

Venkateshwara B V Biocorp Private Limited, Pune vs. Circle 12, Pune

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

ITA 2759/PUN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)

Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 02 days in filing 2 ITA.No.2759/PUN./2025 (Venkateshwara B V Biocorp Pvt. Ltd.) the appeal. He also submitted that the delay is only ... that too on account of technical glitches, but in spite of reasonable cause mentioned in the application for condonation of delay filed before the Ld.CIT(A), delay in filing the appeal has not been condoned and the appeal has been dismissed in limine. He prayed for affording one more opportunity

Satish Nagesh Kulkarni, Secunderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-10(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1025/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1025/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Satish Nagesh Kulkarni, Vs. Dcit, Secunderabad. Circle-10(1), Pan: Begpk9791B Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: None राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 13/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/01/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 29/12/2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering ... application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 11. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that as the assessee had failed

Kingfisher Exim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 4(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 526/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.526/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Kingfisher Exim Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito Ward-4(4), Kolkata C/O Jain Vinod K & Associates, 41A, Ajc Bose Road, Suite No.613, 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017 Pan No. :Aadck 4695 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri V.K.Jain, Fca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.09.2023, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 469 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Its Application For Condonation Of Delay Which Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri V.K.Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR

submitted by the Ld.AR that the appeal of the assessee is delayed by 469 days. The assessee has filed its application for condonation of delay which reads as follows:- 2 3. It was the submission that the assessee did not come to know of the order having been passed ... this cause a delay. 4. I have considered the submissions and also perused the petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit, wherein in the affidavit, the assessee has sworn as follows :- 3 5. A perusal of the reasons given by the assessee shows that no actual valid reasons have

Arvind Kumar Jaiswal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 33(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2499/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2499/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Arvind Kumar Jaiswal, Vs Ito Ward-33(1), Kolkata 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Acwpj 1463 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.02.2025, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2022-2023. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 187 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay. Ld.Sr. Dr Has Also Not Objected To Condone The Delay. Considering The Prayer Of The Assessee In The Application & The Sufficient Reasons For Delay, I Condone The Delay Of 187 Days In Filing The Appeal & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Notice Issued U/S.143(2) Of The Act, Dated 29.09.2018, Whcih Is Shown At Page 63 Of The Paper Book Is Not As Per The Format Prescribed By The Cbdt. The Said Notice Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri Jaydeep Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(2)

appeal of the assessee is delayed by 187 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. Ld.Sr. DR has also not objected to condone the delay. Considering the prayer of the assessee ... application and the sufficient reasons for delay, I condone the delay of 187 days in filing the appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act, dated 29.09.2018, whcih is shown

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Suresh Kumar Banthia, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1894/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SM Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

took quite a long time and accordingly, the delay may be condoned. The Id. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. The issue raised

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Vedanta Resources Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed and

ITA 1845/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148

delay may be condoned for being beyond the control of the appellant. The Id. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. The assessee has pressed

Rattan Jodharam Harchwani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5771/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT-DR)

Section 147Section 148

noticed at the outset that the instant appeal is delayed by 142 days. The assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit of the assessee stating that the delay occurred on account of inadvertence on the part of the appellant's Chartered Accountant/his office and there ... application within such period.... A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs serious risk.” We therefore, condone the delay. 4. Facts of the case as per the assessment order are that the Assessing Officer received an information that the assessee had deposited cash

Umashanker Shiwaprasad Modi, Thane vs. Circle 19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5074/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Umashanker Modi Income Tax Department, Office No. D, 12Th Floor, Mbc Park, National Faceless Appeals Vs. D Building, Near Hypercity, Centre (Nfac), Delhi. Ghodbunder Road, Kasarvadavali, Thane West, Thane- 400615. Pan No. Aabpm 8785 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Fenil Bhatt

Section 144Section 250Section 68

health, and technological constraints. notices due to old age, ill health, and technological constraints. 5. That the appellant prays for condonation of delay in filing the appellant prays for condonation of delay in filing the appellant prays for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal before ... that this 9. That in view of the above circumstances, I humbly pray that this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to condone the delay in Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to condone the dela Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to condone the dela filing

Khimji Lakhamshi Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4455/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

notarized affidavit duly executed on 07.07.2025 and reasons of delay is duly explained. The Ld. DR had not made strong objection against the condonation of delay filed by the assessee. Accordingly, we find that there is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay for 196 days. Accordingly, we condone

Khimji Lakhamshi Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4454/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

Plutus Infrastructure Ltd, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Patna

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

ITA 30/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.30/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Plutus Infrastructure Ltd.………………. …………………....Appellant 310, N P Centre, New Dak Bunglow Road, Patna- 800001.. [Pan: Aadcp2152Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Patna……..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. V. Pathy, Sr. Adv. Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 12, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development & Construction. For The Assessment Year 2015–16, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of ₹83,028. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Estimated The Net Profit At The Rate Of 8% On Undisclosed Sales & Accordingly Made An Addition Of ₹17,71,120. In Addition Thereto, An Addition Of ₹5,60,000 Was Made

Section 250Section 43C

assessee has now preferred an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 303 days. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the submissions and the reasons stated, we are satisfied that there existed a reasonable cause preventing the assessee

Matsyodari Shikshan Sansthas Ankushrao Tope Junior College, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Aurangabad

ITA 880/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C N ChobeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT

Section 200ASection 234E

belated filing of TDS returns for period prior to 1-6-2015 were invalid. He accordingly submitted that the Tribunal should condone the delay and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. 9. The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly objected to the arguments advanced ... assessee has not shown any sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time and therefore, the assessee is not entitled to the condonation of delay. He submitted that since condoning the delay in filing of the appeal is as per the the discretion of the Bench, therefore, in absence

Matsyodari Shikshan Sansthas Ankushrao Tope Junior College, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Aurangabad

ITA 879/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C N ChobeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT

Section 200ASection 234E

Matsyodari Shikshan Sansthas Ankushrao Tope College, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Aurangabad

ITA 878/PUN/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C N ChobeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT

Section 200ASection 234E

Matsyodari Shikshan Sansthas Ankushrao Tope College, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Aurangabad

ITA 877/PUN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C N ChobeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT

Section 200ASection 234E

Vijay Balbhim Pise, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Solapur

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

ITA 195/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.195/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vijay Balbhim Pise, Vs Ito Ward 1(2), 110, Railway Lines, Solapur- Solapur 413001 Maharashtra Pan-Ajgpp4660A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kushal Soni (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

dated 27.12.2016. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 313 days in filing of the present appeal. Application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit has been filed by the assessee stating that the main reason for delay is on account of illness of the assessee suffering from ... case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382), we hereby condone the delay of 313 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT Appeals (NFAC

State Bank of India Nalikul Branch, Nalikul vs. Income Tax TDS Ward 2(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2691/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR

Section 10(5)Section 156Section 201Section 201(1)

present appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 60 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating sufficient reasons which are found to be reasonable, to which ld. Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay

Veerprabhu Auto Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1218/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 24 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the appellate order was noticed by the concerned person late and since the company was busy in year-end closure, the appeal could ... assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeals within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. ITA No.:1218/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Veerprabhu Auto Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before