← 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

Parevartan Educare Foundation, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1057/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1057/Del/2022 (A.Y 2017-18)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 250

account of non-filing of Form 10B within due date without appreciating the fact that the appellant has condoned the delay from CIT (Exemption) Lucknow, and thereby confirmed the addition of Rs. 7524091/- against nil income declared in the ITR. 2. The CIT (A) erred on facts ... both the facts and in law by not considering the reply dt.29.09.2021 wherein the assessee has informed that the CIT Exemption (Lucknow) has condoned the delay of filing Form 10B for AY 2017-18.” 3. The assessee society is engaged in education activities running educational institutions which is registered

Vijay Transmission Pvt. Ltd., Raipu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 37/RPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 37/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Vijay Transmission Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.121/3, 8, 12, 13, Village Kanhera, Urla Acholi Marg, Post-Urla, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccv4467B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

deliberate conduct nor smacked of any lackadaisical approach on its part. The Ld. DR did not raise any objection to the seeking of condonation of delay by the assessee applicant. After hearing the parties, we are satisfied with the reasons leading to the impugned delay, and considering the order

Mehar Singh, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 67(4), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 410/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Delhi dated 29.07.2019 for the assessment year 2010-11 with a delay of 883 days and the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit explaining the reasons for delay as under: - Affidavit “1, Mehar Singh S/o Late Sh. Chhajju Ram R/o WZ-34, Nangli Jalib, B1, Janakpuri ... That the present appeal is immediately filed after downloading the order from the e-proceeding portal. 7. That a separate application for condonation of delay is being submitted to the registrar ITAT, New Delhi based on above grounds. Sd/- Deponent Verification I, the above deponent do hereby verify that

M/S. Om Shiv Properties Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward -6(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 306/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Gogra, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 249Section 40A(3)Section 5

appellant was under bonafide impression that manual appeal filed on dt. 14.12.2016 is a valid appeal filed and thus no condonation of delay petition was submitted before CIT (A). 2. That appellant wish to place strong reliance in the case of All India Federation of Tax Practitioners, Mumbai ... overshadowed or negative by such technical consideration”. 2. There is a delay of 202 days in filing the present appeal. In support of condonation of delay, an Affidavit of Shri Phool Chand Chaudhary, Executive Director 3 M/s. Om Shiv Properties Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. of assessee company along with an application

Spice Mobility Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Meerut

ITA 2394/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi10 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

counsel for the assessee further explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal and referred to the affidavit and letter filed for condonation of delay. 5. Though the ld. DR objected for condonation of delay, but fairly conceded that since the quantum has been deleted, penalty has no legs ... stand. 6. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below and have duly considered the contents of the letter requesting for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit of the Director of the assessee company. In our considered opinion, technicalities should not come in the way of imparting

A.C.Strips Private Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 53/RPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 53/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 A.C Strips Pvt. Ltd. 20, New Cloth Market, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacca0568N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1) Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 2.1 Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) objected to seeking of condonation of delay by the assessee appellant. 2.2. We have given a thoughtful consideration, and are of the considered view that the delay involved in filing

Raj Bir Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-3, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1185/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A K Arora, Sr DR
Section 143(3)

same was returned undelivered by postal authorities. The assessee has also not filed any condonation petition seeking 4 ITA.No. 1185/Del./2022 condonation of delay. Further considering the fact that there was no appearance by the assessee, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee

Late Davendra Chetandas Ahuja, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 12, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4901/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Bomakesh Pradip Kumar

which is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. And it is noted that the affidavit has been filed for inter-alia for condonation of delay, which according to Shri Ravi Kiran Aggarwal happened, due to non- submission of the appeal papers even though the same were signed ... papers filed on 10.09.2015 and thus there was delay of 157 days for filing of appeal before this Tribunal and therefore he sought condonation of delay. However, it has been brought to our notice that Shri Ravi Kiran Agarwal (executor) has withdrawn to represent the late assessee in the captioned

Late Davendra Chetandas Ahuja, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 12, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4900/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Bomakesh Pradip Kumar

which is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. And it is noted that the affidavit has been filed for inter-alia for condonation of delay, which according to Shri Ravi Kiran Aggarwal happened, due to non- submission of the appeal papers even though the same were signed ... papers filed on 10.09.2015 and thus there was delay of 157 days for filing of appeal before this Tribunal and therefore he sought condonation of delay. However, it has been brought to our notice that Shri Ravi Kiran Agarwal (executor) has withdrawn to represent the late assessee in the captioned

Late Davendra Chetandas Ahuja, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 12, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4899/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Bomakesh Pradip Kumar

which is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. And it is noted that the affidavit has been filed for inter-alia for condonation of delay, which according to Shri Ravi Kiran Aggarwal happened, due to non- submission of the appeal papers even though the same were signed ... papers filed on 10.09.2015 and thus there was delay of 157 days for filing of appeal before this Tribunal and therefore he sought condonation of delay. However, it has been brought to our notice that Shri Ravi Kiran Agarwal (executor) has withdrawn to represent the late assessee in the captioned

Late Davendra Chetandas Ahuja, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 12, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4898/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Bomakesh Pradip Kumar

which is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. And it is noted that the affidavit has been filed for inter-alia for condonation of delay, which according to Shri Ravi Kiran Aggarwal happened, due to non- submission of the appeal papers even though the same were signed ... papers filed on 10.09.2015 and thus there was delay of 157 days for filing of appeal before this Tribunal and therefore he sought condonation of delay. However, it has been brought to our notice that Shri Ravi Kiran Agarwal (executor) has withdrawn to represent the late assessee in the captioned

Late Davendra Chetandas Ahuja, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 12, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4897/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Bomakesh Pradip Kumar

which is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. And it is noted that the affidavit has been filed for inter-alia for condonation of delay, which according to Shri Ravi Kiran Aggarwal happened, due to non- submission of the appeal papers even though the same were signed ... papers filed on 10.09.2015 and thus there was delay of 157 days for filing of appeal before this Tribunal and therefore he sought condonation of delay. However, it has been brought to our notice that Shri Ravi Kiran Agarwal (executor) has withdrawn to represent the late assessee in the captioned

Vaibhavnagar Co-Op Credit Soc Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 27(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2694/MUM/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 2694, 2696 & 2697/Mum/2022 (A.Ys: 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vaibhavnagar Co Op Vs. Ito – 27(3)(5) Credit Soc Ltd., Room No. 428, 4Th Ground Floor, Vaibhav Floor, 6Th Tower, Vashi Nagar Vaman Tukaram Rly Station Complex, Patil Marg, Gowandi Navi Mumbai – 400703 Mumbai – 400088 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaav5519Q Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Ramesh S Iyer.Ar Revenue By : Ms.Richa Gulati.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.Ramesh S Iyer.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Richa Gulati.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessee submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and filed an affidavit for condonation of delay and relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. We found the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable ... specific objections. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised the fallowing grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in considering interest earned by the society from other co-operative societies earned in due course of business as income from other sources

Nihil Naranbhai Desai, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 32(2) (40, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1978/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalnihil Naranbhai Desai, Arun Sahu & Associates, Chartered Accountants, B24B, Ground Floor, Borivali Vyomesh Chs, Usha Nagar, Borivali Gymkhana Road, Borivali West, Mumbai-400092. Pan: Abzpd3758J ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-32(2)(4), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 250Section 292BSection 44

informed about this delay in response to that 2 ITA No. 1978 Mum 2021-Nihil Naranbhai Desai assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay with an application and affidavit. In view of this application for condonation of delay and order of Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Suo Moto Writ ... expiry of the said period of fifteen days or the further period allowed, but before the assessment is made, the Assessing Officer may condone the delay and treat the return as a valid return. Explanation - for the purposes of this subsection, a return of income shall be regarded as defective

Bharati Rani Saha, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 61(3), Kolkata

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 423/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

pointed out that appeal is time-barred by 1943 days. In order to explain the delay, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay and also annexed an affidavit of Smt Bharati Rani Saha the assessee. The affidavit of the assessee reads as under:- 2 I.T.A. Nos.421 ... also been used identically in sub-Section 3 of Section 249 of the Act, which provides power to the Id. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation

Bharati Rani Saha, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-61(3), Kolkata

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 422/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

pointed out that appeal is time-barred by 1943 days. In order to explain the delay, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay and also annexed an affidavit of Smt Bharati Rani Saha the assessee. The affidavit of the assessee reads as under:- 2 I.T.A. Nos.421 ... also been used identically in sub-Section 3 of Section 249 of the Act, which provides power to the Id. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation

Bharati Rani Saha, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 61(3), Kolkata

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 421/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

pointed out that appeal is time-barred by 1943 days. In order to explain the delay, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay and also annexed an affidavit of Smt Bharati Rani Saha the assessee. The affidavit of the assessee reads as under:- 2 I.T.A. Nos.421 ... also been used identically in sub-Section 3 of Section 249 of the Act, which provides power to the Id. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation

M/S Manish Prakash Mutha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 3(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the same is upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 462/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mantri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R
Section 40

appellant, Mr. Manish Prakash Mutha (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by a delay of 1018 days and also moved an application for condonation of delay. The assessee sought to condone the delay of 1018 days on the grounds inter-alia that out of total delay of 1018 days ... penalty notice for the year under consideration. 2. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue opposed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the assessee was duly served and copy of order was received by him on 12.04.2019 as is evident from acknowledgment

The Colaba Central Co-Op Consumers Wholesale and Retail Stores Ltd, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi (AO), Mumbai

ITA 2583/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Bhandari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, D.R
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

same on ground of delay of 105 days in filing the appeal on failure of the assessee to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Feeling aggrieved with 3 M/s. The Colaba Central Co-op Consumers Wholesale and Retail Stores Ltd. the impugned order passed

Mrs Sanjana R. Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Ward, 3(4), Kalyan, Thane

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

ITA 1111/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 69A

delete to the grounds of appeal at the time of or before hearing” 2. The assessee by filing an application sought to condone the delay of 04 days in filing the present appeal on the ground that she has received the order passed ... folder it was seen that the said order was received on 14.03.2022. From the reason stated by the assessee in her application for condonation of delay I find that this is a sufficient cause with the assessee being a small business women, she might not be conversant with the technicalities