“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

Mass Awash Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Addi. CIT International Taxation, Noida

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 166/DEL/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 156Section 195Section 201(1)Section 271C(1)(a)Section 275(1)(C)Section 275(1)(c)

condoning the impugned delay in filing the appeal. 8. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. DR and perused the application for condonation of delay available in the records. It is observed that the assessee company has alleged that the inordinate delay in filing the appeal is attributable ... convincing that the delay was caused due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Moreover, even after filing the application for condonation of delay on 26.02.2021, none is appearing for / or on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal on several dates fixed for hearing of the captioned

Mass Awash Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Addi. CIT International Taxation, Noida

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 165/DEL/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 156Section 195Section 201(1)Section 271C(1)(a)Section 275(1)(C)Section 275(1)(c)

Mass Awash Private Limited, Lucknow vs. Addi. CIT International Taxation, Noida

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 164/DEL/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 156Section 195Section 201(1)Section 271C(1)(a)Section 275(1)(C)Section 275(1)(c)

Ravi Agrawal, Indore vs. The PCIT-2, Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniravi Agrawal Pr. Cit 101-102, Kanchan Vihar, Indore Vs. Niranjanpur, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aorpa 2161 B Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 19.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.05.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 263Section 54

appeal ex-parte. 3. There is a delay of 67 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay and also filed the affidavit in support of the application to explain the cause of delay. 4. We have perused the contents

Purple Medical Solutions Pvt. Ltd [Successor of Miv Therapeutics (India) Pvt. Ltd], Mulund vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 186/SRT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Purple Medical Solutions Private Limited Pr.C.I.T. (Successor Of Miv Therapeutics (India) Surat-1, Vs. Pvt. Ltd.) Surat. 615/616 Avior, Nirmal Galaxy, Lbs Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. Pan: Aaecp 3664 L Appellant Respondednt

Section 254(1)Section 263Section 36Section 43B

Mumbai Benches of Tribunal. In the event of filing appeal before Mumbai benches, the assessee shall be at liberty to file application for condonation of delay for explaining all the aforesaid fact in such application and the coordinate bench are expected to consider such application sympathetically for condoning the delay

Gani Mohammad Popat, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3, Vapi

In the result, grounds No

ITA 514/SRT/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Popat Yasin Abdulganibhai, I.T.O., Son & L/H Of Late Gani Mohammad Ward-3, Vs. Popat, Vapi. Bombay Market, Zanda Chowk, Near S.T. Bus Depot, Vapi. Pan No. Akvpp 0747 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 10/05/2016, however, the present appeal was filed only on 11/11/2019. The applicant/deceased assessee filed application for condonation of delay. In the application it was contended that the impugned order was passed on 10/05/2016 and was received on the same date and this appeal ... Tribunal. It is further stated that failure to file appeal is not intentional but beyond the control of assessee. The assessee prayed for condoning the delay. The assessee also referred various case laws in his application. 4. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee while referring the contents

Bhanwari Devi, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 74/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Agarwal( CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

assessee is delayed by 13 days. The assessee has explained the delay by filing an application dated 17th February, 2023 for condonation of delay along with supporting affidavit of the assessee and requested for condonation of delay. The contents of the application for seeking condonation of delay are reproduced ... intention of Assessee to avoid the proceedings. Assessee being the old lady and not conversant with the technology, it is kindly requested to condone the delay in filing of appeal and oblige so that justice may be given to the assessee.” 3 Smt. Bhanwari Devi, Alwar 3. Having considered

Sri Mandava Naresh, Vijayawada vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.144/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sri Mandava Naresh Vs. Principal Commissioner Of D.No.14/9, Korukollu Income Tax Kaikalur Vijayawada Charge [Pan : Ahmpn2074J] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Condonation Of Delay : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit), Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1041046029(1) Dated 19.03.2022 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) By The Assessing Officer (Ao) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 With The Delay Of 69 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Submitting That He Resides In A 2

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)

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

Hearing : 27.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.04.2023 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 (Pr.CIT), vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2021-22/1041046029(1) dated 19.03.2022 arising ... Assessing Officer (AO) for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 with the delay of 69 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay, submitting that he resides in a 2 I.T.A. No.144/Viz/2022, A.Y.2017-18 Mandava Naresh, Vijayawada village, which is remotely located at Korukollu, Krishna District. He is not well

Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhorra, Gariyaband vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

ITA 25/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 25/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhorra Ground Floor, Main Road Dhorra, Gariyaband(C.G)-493889 Pan: Aabaa7991C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle 1(1) Revenue Building, Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.)-492001 ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

time of hearing. 12. Whether there is any delay in filing of appeal ( if yes, please attach application seeking condonation of delay) 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee-society which is a primary agricultural co-operative society engaged in the business of banking, paddy procurement, sale of fertilizers, seeds, manure

ITO3(1), Indore vs. K. K. Patel Finance Ltd., Morena

ITA 988/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-3(1) K.K. Patel Finance Ltd. Indore 44, Jiwaji Ganj, बनाम/ Gandhi Aushdhalaya Road, Vs. Morena (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aabck 4282 G Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 15.12.2022 / 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023

Section 143(3)Section 68

present appeal is delayed by 2 years, 6 months and 21 days. He submits that the revenue has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. The affidavit explaining the reason of delay is scanned below: Page 2 of 19 K.K. Patel Finance Ltd. Assessment year ... intention in making delay; it is purely due to the reasons explained in the affidavit. He prayed to take a judicious view and condone the delay. We have considered the explanation of revenue and observe that the original assessment-order was passed by ACIT, Circle-5(1), Indore; the first

Rajpal, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO Ward -2(3)(1), Bulandshahr

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

ITA 392/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

made by the appellant and the appeal is stated to be out of time. Thus, there is unjustifiable delay in filing the appeal. Condonation of delay is not a matter of right since appellant has failed to show reasons of delay on last day of limitation and thereafter for each ... mind the watershade principles laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 while examining the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) shall readjudicate all issues in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

A. K. Builders, Daman and Diu vs. Income Tax Officer Daman Ward, Daman

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

ITA 238/SRT/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) A.K. Builders, I.T.O., Jay Apartment, Kathiria, Nani Daman Ward, Vs. Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut)- Daman. 396210. Pan No. Aamfa 7826 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 260(6)

record, I find that there is delay of 44 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in the form of affidavit. In the affidavit, Shri Ambrish G Intwala, stated that he is partner of assessee firm has specifically contended that ... delay is not condoned, then in that eventuality, the assessee will suffer irreparable loss and injury and therefore, he prayed for condonation of delay. 3. In alternative and without prejudice submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that if the Bench may condone the delay then the matter

E-Arogya Healthcare Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 15(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 337/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati (Sr. AR)

Section 144Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in not condonation the delay of twenty eight (28) days, though, according to the assessee, it had filed the condonation of delay explaining the cause for delay. 3. Brief facts are that AO passed scrutiny assessment ... assessee for delay in filling the appeal was not reasonable. Therefore, he was pleased to dismiss the appeal as not maintainable and denied condonation of delay. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It has been brought to our notice

DCIT - CC- 6(4), Mumbai vs. Fornax Real Estate Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the petition under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963, as filed by the assessee, is allowed

ITA 1427/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 44A

that the present appeal be heard on merits. The learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) did not raise any objection against the prayer for condonation of delay. In view of the above, since the present appeal has been filed within the extended time granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court during

United Bank of India (Formely) Now Punjab National Bank, Delhi vs. ACIT Ltu-1 Kolkata (Under Transfer to Circle 19(1), Delhi

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

ITA 387/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 154Section 234DSection 244ASection 250

facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was not justified to refuse to condone the delay in filing an appeal. It is prayed that delay in filing of the case be condoned and the appeal be adjudicated; 4. That ... Against the above order, the assessee appealed before the National Faceless Appeal Centre. 2 5. The Ld. CIT(A) raised the issue of condonation of delay by observing as under:- “Before proceeding ahead with the merits of the Appeal, it is important to first decide on the matter relating

Shashikant Kalyanbhai Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Bharuch

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

ITA 45/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Shashikant Kalyanbhai Patel, I.T.O., 659, Sapoliya Street, Ramshila Ward 1(5), Vs. Chowk, Shuklatirth, Bharuch. Bharuch-392030. Pan No. Adlpp 4184 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 68

supported with any other evidence like prescription or medical bills. The ld. Sr. DR finally submits that he left the issue of condonation of delay on the discretion of Bench. On merit the ld SR DR for the revenue submits that the assessee is habitual defaulter in not making compliance ... duly supported by medical certificate of a qualified doctor, therefore, I find that it is sufficient and reasonable cause and grounds for condoning the delay of 232 days in filing the appeal. Thus, the delay in filing appeal is condoned. 5. On merit, I find that the Assessing Officer passed

Shri Rakesh Madhubhai Kanpariya, Prempara, Dhari, Amreli-365640 vs. The ITO, Ward-3 (1) (4), Amreli

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 255/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 255/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Shri Rakesh Madhubhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Kanpariya Ward-3(1)(4), Rajkot- Vs. Prempara Dhari Prempara Amreli Dhrai, Prempara Dhari Dhari, Amreli – 365640, Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Daipk3406F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri K. L. Solanki, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 18/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 25/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.07.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: None

Section 131Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

adjournment has been sought for. 3. There is a delay of 36 days in preferring the appeal before us. In support of such condonation of delay, an application has also been filed by the appellant. In fact, the appellant was in search of Chartered Accountant for filing the appeal before

Kashyap Kamleshbhai Parekh, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Bharuch

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

ITA 189/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Kashyap Kamleshbhai Parekh, I.T.O., A-13, Aalekh Co-Operative Society, Near Ward-1(4)(6), Vs. N.K. Petroleum, Zadeshwar, Bharuch. Bharuch-392011. Pan No. Akfpp 3523 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 144Section 254(1)

assessee submits that there is delay of 213 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. The application is supported by affidavit of assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee engaged Dhiraj Agarwal, CA for filing ... assessee will suffer irreparable loss if the assessee is not heard on merit. The ld AR for the assessee prayed for condoning the delay in filing appeal and to restore the grounds of appeal to the file of ld CIT(A) on merit. 3. On the other hand, the learned

Swastic Oil Industries, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle-7, Jaipur

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

ITA 33/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl. CIT) a

Section 143(2)Section 249(2)Section 271(1)(c)

clear that there is no reasonable cause of delay in filing the appeal. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is not admitted and condonation of delay is not granted. 4. As a result, the appeal is dismissed. ” 5. As the assessee has not found any favour from the appeal ... Apex Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court itself considered the Covid-Period to be the best reasonable cause contributing the delay and granted condonation of delay in all the case. Therefore, the CIT(A) incorrectly held that there was no reasonable cause of delay moreover it is also wrong

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir.-3, Surat vs. Marudhar Diamond Pvt Ltd, Surat

ITA 440/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

Section 143(3)

delay in filing the appeal; it is rather a mistake in computing the days of delay, hence there is no question for condonation of delay. 3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and noted that while computing the delay, the date on which appeal has been