← 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

Mr. Suresh Henry Thomas, Mumbai vs. ITO - 9(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 384/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Wadhwa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Henry Thomas (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) that aforesaid appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 357 days and sought to condone the delay by moving an application supported with an affidavit filed by the assessee on the grounds inter-alia that he has earlier engaged Shri Anil ... residing in a rental premises. 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 for dismissal

Mr Suresh Henry Thomas, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 383/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Wadhwa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Henry Thomas (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) that aforesaid appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 357 days and sought to condone the delay by moving an application supported with an affidavit filed by the assessee on the grounds inter-alia that he has earlier engaged Shri Anil ... residing in a rental premises. 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 for dismissal

Modern English School Education Society, Koraput vs. ITO (Exemption Ward), Berhampur

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

ITA 42/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack18 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2015-16 Modern Modern English English School School Vs. Ito (Exemption Ward) Ito (Exemption Ward) Education Education Society, Society, Berhampur Berhampur Parabeda, Parabeda, Jeypore, Jeypore, Dist: Dist: Koraput Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aacam 7223 Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv/Kailash Panigrahi, Ca P.K.Mishra, Adv/Kailash Panigrahi, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 18 /0 04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18 /0 /04/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv/Kailash Panigrahi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 12Section 12A

observe that the condonation petition supported by affidavit filed by the assessee has not been found to be false and wrong. Consequently, I condone the delay of 385 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee ... registration, tax liability is fastened even though they may otherwise be eligible for exemption and fulfill other substantive conditions. However, the power of condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available." P a g e 4 | 7 Assessment Year : 2015-16 This clearly goes to prove that the first

Shri Kailash Singh, Bhopal vs. The DCIT/ACIT 1 (1), Bhopal

ITA 413/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kailash Singh Dcit/Acit 1(1) F.No.513, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhagwan Parisar Hoshangabad Road, Vs. Misroad, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Ahips 0796 G Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

Section 143(3)

present appeal is delayed by 19 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR submits that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp. On perusal of the application/affidavit, we observe that the assessee has stated that his father was a senior citizen

Indore Contract Bridge Association Yeashwant Club, Indore vs. ITO, Ward-Examption, Indore

ITA 403/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Indore Contract Bridge Cpc, Association, Bangalore बनाम/ Yashwant Club, Race Course Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaaai 1652 F Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: “1. The Ld. CIT(NFAC) has erred in not Condoning the delay in filing the appeal rejecting the reasonable clause for delay in filing the appeal. Page 1 of 12 Indore Contract Bridge Association Assessment year ... NFAC) has erred in not condoning the delay for filing Form 10B when the return was filed on the basis of the Audit Report obtained by the assessee. 3. The Ld. CIT(NFAC) has erred in not considering the CBDT circulars and also the judgment of the Bombay High Court

Shri Shivnarayan, Indore vs. The ITO 4 (4), Indore

ITA 396/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Shivnarayan Ito-4(4) 88, Ushapura, Agra, Indore बनाम/ (Tehsil-Depalpur, Now Hatod) Vs. Indore - 453115 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Cufps 2850 H Assessee By Shri S. N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

Section 142(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

present appeal is delayed by 82 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR submits that the assessee has filed a request for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp. On perusal of affidavit, we observe that following reason has been given by assessee for delay in filing appeal

Shri Jankilal, Ujjain vs. PCIT-1, Indore

ITA 175/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jankilal Pr.Cit-1 बनाम/ 12, Chimanganj Mandi Indore Agar Road, Ujjain Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aczpj 2632 A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 263Section 40Section 80I

assessee Page 1 of 12 Jankilal ITA No.175/Ind /2022 Assessment year 2017-18 has filed an application supported by an affidavit for condonation of delay. He submitted that the delay has occurred due to Covid-19 Pandemic. He further submitted that the present appeal was filed ... control; hence the same may be condoned. We confronted the Ld. DR who did not show any objection. In view of this, we condone the delay and proceed for hearing. 4. Briefly stated the facts are such that the assessee submitted return of income of relevant

Jagbir Singh Tewatia, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2205/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 34Section 36Section 4Section 43B

basis of material available on record. 3. As per office report, the present appeal is barred by 257 days. An application seeking condonation of delay on behalf of the assessee is on record, wherein it has been stated that the assessee was mentally disturbed owing to sudden death

Jayshreeben Nilamkumar Desai, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Navsari

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

ITA 176/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Jayshreeben Nilamkumar Desai, I.T.O., Saket, New Patel Nagar Society, Chhapra Ward-3, Vs. Road, Navsari. Navsari. Pan No. Ambpd 8733 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 254(1)

delay of 140 days in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed application for condonation of delay in explaining the cause of delay in filing first appeal. The delay in filing appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate due to the bonafide reasons ... appeal on merit. 1. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue opposed the plea of condonation of delay as argued by the ld. AR of the assessee. The ld. Sr. DR submits that the assessee has not explained the cause of delay

Mahaveer Prasad Jain, Jaipur vs. Principal CIT-2, New Central Revenue Building

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Avadesh Kumar (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: “I, Mahaveer Prasad Jain, the above named assessee-appellant would like to submit that: 1. That the appellant is carrying on business ... delay in filing the form 36 is bona fide & unintentional and backed by reasonable cause. It is therefore, humbly prayed to kindly condone the delay of 214 days in filing Form 36 and allow admission of appeal and oblige.” 3 Mahaveer Prasad Jain vs. PCIT, Jaipur 2.1 In addition

Seaward Exports Private Limited, Kota vs. ITO TDS, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 272/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. MonishaChoudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234E

Accountant of the 3 SEAWORD EXPORT PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA assessee company before the ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay is reproduced as under:- ‘’1. That due to some unavoidable circumstances, I had to shift my job from above named company to Maruti Sales Corporation ... there is delay of 03 days in filing the appeal by the asseessee for which the assessee has neither filed the application for condonation of delay nor any justifiable reason was advanced by the ld. AR of the assessee. 2.5 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order

Harsh Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 355/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A)For Respondent: Ms. James Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)

delay of 112 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers:- “In the aforesaid context, it is humbly submitted that, in this case, order dated 07.04.2022 was passed ... only 105 days. In the circumstances of the matter it is humbly prayed to the Hon'ble Bench to please direct the condonation of delay which is merely of 105 days and to be kind enough to direct the listing of the appeal for disposal on the merits. Your kindness

Rang Avdhut Mandir Trust, Bardoli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Bardoli

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 336/SRT/2022[2017-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Apr 2023AY 2017-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rang Avdhut Mandir Trust, I.T.O., 208, Sarvoday Nagar Society, Bardoli, Ward-1, Vs. Surat. Bardoli. Pan No. Aaaar 3731 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 254(1)Section 80J

holding that the assessee has filed Form-10B after due date of filing return of income. The assessee should have filed application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The assessee filed/uploaded Form-10B after due date of filing of return of income under section

Indira Sastry, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2478/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2013-14

assessee did not mention that there is delay in filing the appeal. Nevertheless, the assessee uploaded a petition along with Form 35, seeking condonation of delay. This fact has been clearly admitted by learned Commissioner (Appeals). In fact, the contents of the petition seeking condonation of delay has been reproduced ... assessee has failed to mention about the delay in Form No. 35, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay, by alleging that the assessee is neither careful nor diligent. This, in our view, is, unacceptable. 3 5. When the assessee has separately filed

Kamaldeep Harcharanjitsingh Dang, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Surat

ITA 38/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Kamaldeep Harcharanjitsingh Dang, I.T.O., (I) C/O Surat Ahmedabad Transport (P) Ward(3)(1)(1), Vs. Ltd., Near Hotel Amisha Unapani Road, Surat. Lal Darwaja, Surat-395003. (Ii) Kamaldeep H. Dang, 79A Dang Farm, Silver Oak Road, Gadaipur, Ghitroni, South West Delhi, Delhi-110030 Mo. No. 9350581314 Pan No. Acepd 3949 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

Assessment year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The present appeal was filed on 19/01/2023. Alongwith appeal, the assessee also filed application for condonation of delay of 1360 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Subsequent to filing of appeal, the Kamaldeep H. Dang Vs ITO assessee also filed application for transfer ... Tribunal. Considering the submission of ld. AR of the assessee, the appeal of assessee alongwith 2 Kamaldeep H. Dang Vs ITO application for condonation of delay is dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee is given liberty to file the appeal before the Delhi Benches of Tribunal and to pursue the same

Anand Jhawar, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 156/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma, CIT &
Section 12ASection 138Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee is delayed by 334 days. The assessee has explained the delay caused by filing an application dated 19.05.2022 and requested for condonation of delay as under :- “ 1. This present appeal is filed vide dated 29.04.2022 against the order passed by PCIT, Jaipur-2 vide order dated 31.03.2021 with ... Supreme Court vide dated 10.01.2022 is enclosed for your ready reference. In view of above submission you are requested that to condone the delay and kindly admit the appeal. So the substantial justice may be delivered to the appellant. The assessee prays accordingly.” 3. Having considered the rival submissions

M/S Indore Mandal Dak Tar Karamchari Sehakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore vs. The ITO 5 (1), Indore

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 400/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Venus Rawka, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 80P

assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that there is a delay of 23 days in filing the present appeal for which the condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee explaining the delay therein. The reasons given by the assessee appears to be genuine, hence the delay is condoned

Smt Pushplata Chandrawat, Indore vs. The DCIT CPC, Banglore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 180/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Smt. Pushplata Chandrawat, V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. House No. 34-Bg, Scheme No. 74-C, Vijay Nagar, Indore Pan-Adapc8144L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Anil Kumar Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2023

For Appellant: Anil Kumar Garg & Arpit Gaur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 138Section 143(1)

impugned order dated 23rd May, 2021 therefore, there is a delay in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. The Learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the delay up to 30th May, 2022 is covered as per the limitation extended ... submitted that the order is also sent to the e-mail provided by the assessee in Form No. 35. He has objected to condonation of delay. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on records. In the application for condonation of delay, the assessee

Raman Lal Sharma, Rajsamand vs. JCIT, Range-2, Udaipur

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

ITA 38/JODH/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur05 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 271DSection 271E

delay of 198 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers. “ I HAVE RECEIVED THE ORDER OF Commissioner (Appeals), in case for assessment year 2007-08, I am village based person ... delay in submission of the appeal.” 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR has no objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay and prayed that Court may decide the issue as deem fit and proper in the case. We have considered the submission

Raman Lal Sharma, Rajsamand vs. JCIT, Range-2, Udaipur

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

ITA 37/JODH/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur05 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 271DSection 271E

delay of 198 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers. “ I HAVE RECEIVED THE ORDER OF Commissioner (Appeals), in case for assessment year 2007-08, I am village based person ... delay in submission of the appeal.” 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR has no objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay and prayed that Court may decide the issue as deem fit and proper in the case. We have considered the submission