← 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

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 182/JAB/2008[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Feb 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

same was filed without obtaining CoD approval. 26.07.2021 The Tribunal vide its consolidated interim order on the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the cross-objections, therein, considering the fact that the department was unable to take an official stand as to whether ... objection is inadvertent and unintentional and is due to above bona fide reasons, hence it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may condone the delay in filing the objections and allow the same in the interest of justice considering subsequent developments of law.” 8.1 Alternatively, it was submitted

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 180/JAB/2008[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Feb 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

same was filed without obtaining CoD approval. 26.07.2021 The Tribunal vide its consolidated interim order on the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the cross-objections, therein, considering the fact that the department was unable to take an official stand as to whether ... objection is inadvertent and unintentional and is due to above bona fide reasons, hence it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may condone the delay in filing the objections and allow the same in the interest of justice considering subsequent developments of law.” 8.1 Alternatively, it was submitted

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 178/JAB/2008[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Feb 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

same was filed without obtaining CoD approval. 26.07.2021 The Tribunal vide its consolidated interim order on the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the cross-objections, therein, considering the fact that the department was unable to take an official stand as to whether ... objection is inadvertent and unintentional and is due to above bona fide reasons, hence it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may condone the delay in filing the objections and allow the same in the interest of justice considering subsequent developments of law.” 8.1 Alternatively, it was submitted

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 177/JAB/2008[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Feb 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

same was filed without obtaining CoD approval. 26.07.2021 The Tribunal vide its consolidated interim order on the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the cross-objections, therein, considering the fact that the department was unable to take an official stand as to whether ... objection is inadvertent and unintentional and is due to above bona fide reasons, hence it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may condone the delay in filing the objections and allow the same in the interest of justice considering subsequent developments of law.” 8.1 Alternatively, it was submitted

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 176/JAB/2008[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Feb 2023AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

same was filed without obtaining CoD approval. 26.07.2021 The Tribunal vide its consolidated interim order on the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the cross-objections, therein, considering the fact that the department was unable to take an official stand as to whether ... objection is inadvertent and unintentional and is due to above bona fide reasons, hence it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may condone the delay in filing the objections and allow the same in the interest of justice considering subsequent developments of law.” 8.1 Alternatively, it was submitted

Naveen Chandra Bhatt, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-71(2), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2690/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 249(3)

raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal before CIT(A). 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter action ... refusing the condonation of delay is bad in law and against the facts of the case. 3. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the bad of the case is not 2 deciding the appeal on the merits of the case. 4. That the appellant craves

Sh. Yogendra Kumar, Kherali Pichnot, Khareda, Via-Malakhera, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alwar

ITA 341/JPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Cit (A) Through Ca Rajesh Bhagwan On 17.12.2018. In Form No. 35 My Address Along With The Mobile No. Is Given & E-Mail Id Of My Ca Rajesh Bhagwan Is Given At Which The Notice Of Hearing May Be Sent.

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal (CA)For Respondent: SMs Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 148Section 250

assessment year 2011-12. There is a delay of 34 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee dated 5th September, 2022. In the affidavit, the assessee has explained the delay as under ... Kalani & Co., Jaipur to file appeal before Hon’ble ITAT who advised me to file the appeal along with the application for condonation of delay. 5. The facts stated in Para 1 to 5 above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. So help

Ritika Gupta, 3/273, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-4(2), Jaipur, Ward-4(2)

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

ITA 551/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hearing.

For Appellant: Ms. Shivangi Samdhani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 253(3)

Titika Gupta, Jaipur. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 2 (Two) days. The assessee has submitted an application requesting condonation of delay. The assessee explained that the delay caused due to non receipt of the Order of the ld. CIT (A) dated 27.04.2017 which was remained ... appeal before the Tribunal but the delay caused due to situation beyond the control of the assessee. She therefore, requested to condone the delay of 2 days. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has no objection if the delay is condoned. 3. On going through the explanation

Navratan Daga, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-27, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 910/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-219

Section 132Section 69ASection 69C

must observe, Registry has pointed out a delay of 59 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay on the ground that due to restriction imposed on account of COVID-19, the appeal could not be filed in 3 ITA No.910/Del./2021 time ... Being satisfied with the reason shown, I am inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. In ground no.1, assessee has challenged addition of Rs.1,48,000 under Section 69A of the Act. 5. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual

Gyan Chand Sharma, Palwal vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Faridabad

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

ITA 1586/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Gyan Chand Sharma, Vs Ito, H.No.436, Adarsh Colony, Ward-1(3), Palwal, Haryana. Faridabad. Pan-Bhgps2052E Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

basis of material available on record. 3. It is seen from the record that the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and an affidavit in support of the application is also filed by the assessee. It is stated in the affidavit that ... appeared on behalf of the Revenue, opposed these submissions and submitted that there is no reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. She submitted that the assessee has been negligent throughout and did not avail opportunities granted by the Assessing Authority. Even before this

Shri Yasir Bilal Khan, Srinagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 156/ASR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

Further the appeal is filed with delay for 31 days. Related to the delay in filing appeal the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay, the assessee’s relative was seriously ill and assessee was forget to submit the appeal as his primary focus about the treatment ... relative. The ld. SR Dr had not made any objection relating the condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay for 31 days is condoned. 3. The case was called for hearing, but none was present on behalf of the assessee. Where assessee was duly served the notice and is also provided

Shri Yasir Bilal Khan, Srinagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 155/ASR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

Further the appeal is filed with delay for 31 days. Related to the delay in filing appeal the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay, the assessee’s relative was seriously ill and assessee was forget to submit the appeal as his primary focus about the treatment ... relative. The ld. SR Dr had not made any objection relating the condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay for 31 days is condoned. 3. The case was called for hearing, but none was present on behalf of the assessee. Where assessee was duly served the notice and is also provided

Shri Yasir Bilal Khan, Srinagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 154/ASR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

Further the appeal is filed with delay for 31 days. Related to the delay in filing appeal the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay, the assessee’s relative was seriously ill and assessee was forget to submit the appeal as his primary focus about the treatment ... relative. The ld. SR Dr had not made any objection relating the condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay for 31 days is condoned. 3. The case was called for hearing, but none was present on behalf of the assessee. Where assessee was duly served the notice and is also provided

Shri Yasir Bilal Khan, Srinagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 153/ASR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

Further the appeal is filed with delay for 31 days. Related to the delay in filing appeal the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay, the assessee’s relative was seriously ill and assessee was forget to submit the appeal as his primary focus about the treatment ... relative. The ld. SR Dr had not made any objection relating the condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay for 31 days is condoned. 3. The case was called for hearing, but none was present on behalf of the assessee. Where assessee was duly served the notice and is also provided

Shri Yasir Bilal Khan, Srinagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 152/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

Further the appeal is filed with delay for 31 days. Related to the delay in filing appeal the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay, the assessee’s relative was seriously ill and assessee was forget to submit the appeal as his primary focus about the treatment ... relative. The ld. SR Dr had not made any objection relating the condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay for 31 days is condoned. 3. The case was called for hearing, but none was present on behalf of the assessee. Where assessee was duly served the notice and is also provided

Shri Yasir Bilal Khan, Srinagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 151/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

Further the appeal is filed with delay for 31 days. Related to the delay in filing appeal the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay, the assessee’s relative was seriously ill and assessee was forget to submit the appeal as his primary focus about the treatment ... relative. The ld. SR Dr had not made any objection relating the condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay for 31 days is condoned. 3. The case was called for hearing, but none was present on behalf of the assessee. Where assessee was duly served the notice and is also provided

Shri Jaspal Singh, Moga vs. ITO Ward-3, Moga

ITA 210/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Ms. Kanchan Garg, Sr DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250(6)

finally heard or disposed off.” 4. The case was filed with a delay of 49 days. The assessee filed the petition for condonation of delay and explained that after hearing of the appeal of the ld. 3 Jashpal Singh vs. ITO CIT(A), the assessee travelled abroad. After the return

De Paul Educational Society, Eluru vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 155/VIZ/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.155/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) De Paul Educational Society Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Pinakadimi (Exemptions) Pinakadimi Post Hyderabad Pedavegi Mandal Eluru, West Godavari [Pan :Aaaad7299K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Johney, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri Johney, ARFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik
Section 10Section 139Section 2(15)

Hearing : 31.01.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 16.02.2023 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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad in F.No.CIT(E)/Hyd/10(23C)/77/2018-19 dated ... with the delay of 232 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay, submitting that the order was received on 25.09.2019 and the appeal 2 I.T.A. No.155/Viz/2020, A.Y.2018-19 De-Paul Educational Society, West Godavari ought to have been filed on or before 24.11.2019, but filed with the delay

Virender Singh Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(5), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3600/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

filed late by 1193 days which was notified to the assessee vide Registry’s letter dated 14.05.2018. There is on record application for condonation of delay. 7. Hearing was fixed by the Tribunal on 27.07.2021, 22.09.2021, 22.11.2021, 24.01.2022, 29.03.2022, 15.06.2022, 12.09.2022, 22.11.2022 and finally on 07.02.2023. None attended ... stated earlier, the appeal to the Tribunal has been filed late by 1193 days. We have gone through the application for condonation of delay of 1193 days which has been attributed by the assessee to his continuous ill- health and severe depression on account of family problems. However, no documentary

Mesers Alfa Mechanical & Electricals Engineering Works, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Oficer Ward 3 (1), Srinagar

In the result ITA No. 137/ASR/2018 and ITA No

ITA 99/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Umar Rashid Wani, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

wrong advice of the consultant may cause the delay for filing the appeal. The Revenue has not made any objection related to condonation of delay for 149 days. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. We take the appeal for hearing. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds in relation