“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

Vsc Finance Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per above terms

ITA 38/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Vsc Finance Private Limited C Block, Siyaram Apartment, Mungeli Road, Mangla Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Aabcv4247Q

For Appellant: S/shri G.S. Agrawal &For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

assessee. That further, the Revenue has also not filed any counter affidavit nor has brought on record any adverse evidence challenging the said condonation of delay. Rather, the Ld. Sr. DR conceded to the condonation petition filed by the assessee in the interest of substantive justice. Therefore, in the totality

Das Processors, Rajnandgaon vs. Income Tax Officer-1 Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgaon

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

ITA 780/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 780/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Das Processors, 44 Vardhman Nagar Vs Income Tax Officer-1 Jain School Road, Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgaon, Fci Road, Chhattisgarh-491441 Near Raipur Naka Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh-491441 Pan: Aaifd6768Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 263

assessee has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeal and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) 1 Das Processors vs. ITO-1, Rajnandgaon did not decide ... under section 144 rws 263 of the Act, the assessee filed belated appeal (66 days) before the Ld. CIT(A), who did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. 4. Before us, the assessee was not represented by anyone. Therefore, we heard Dr. Priyanka Patel

Jagdishchandra Shantilal Chhatralia, Gujarat vs. Assesing Oficer, Rajkot

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

ITA 623/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 623/Rjt/2025

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

March 11, 2023, without considering that a subsequent appeal against that order was filed before the ITAT. The ITAT has since condoned the delay in the quantum appeal and directed the CIT(A) to decide the case on its merits. 4. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing ... outset, that the appeal filed late by 763 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The relevant para of the application for delay is as under; “5. Following the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A), I intended

Vikas Chandrakantbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 25/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

delay of almost one year and that the assessee had neither mentioned the delay in Form No.35 nor furnished any explanation seeking condonation of delay. According to the CIT(A), the appeal was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. However, the CIT(A) proceeded to examine the issues

M. Pratapray Prints Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 497/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 14A

liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal.” 3. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along-with an Affidavit for delay of 125 days in filing of the present appeal. In the M Pratapray Prints Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT ... Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay so that substantial justice is advanced and technical considerations do not defeat the cause of justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Sanjayji Sumnji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Patan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 310/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Maulik Kansara, ARFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 250Section 69A

amend, alter or withdraw all or any ground of appeal." ITA No. 310/Ahd/2025 Sanjayji Sumnji Thakor vs. ITO Asst. Year-2018-19 -2- Condonation of Delay 3. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal ... assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay explaining the circumstances which led to the delay. After considering the submissions of the assessee and keeping in view the fact that the delay involved is small and does not cause any perceptible prejudice to the Revenue

Kshatriya Vikas Parisad Gujarat, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of 1109 days, the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay is dismissed

ITA 2485/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Mauli Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR

that there is a delay of 1109 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the present appeal. However, on going through the application for condonation ... statutory time limit prescribed under the Act. 6. It is a settled principle of law that though the expression “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay should be construed liberally in appropriate cases, the party seeking condonation of delay must nevertheless demonstrate that the delay was beyond its control and that

Air Wind Green Energy Limited, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2435/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Varis Isani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 273BSection 274

Appeals) (for short "Appellate Authority") has erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the grounds of the limitation by not condoning of delay, and confirming the penalty levied u/s. 272A(1)(d) Income Tax Act. 2. The Lrd. Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the appellant ... natural justice. Hence, no penalty is leviable. 6. The Lrd. CIT (A) has erred in law in passing the order is not condoning the delay in filing the appeal without appreciating the genuine and bona fide reasons for the delay of appeal. 7. The Lrd. AO ought to have condone

Deep Automotive, Beed vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

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

ITA 2832/PUN/2025[2023-2024]Status: HeardITAT Pune12 Mar 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha (virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

dismissing the appeal refusing to condone the small delay of 32 days in filing the appeal, even when, the detailed justification for condonation of delay was filed before CIT (A) in Form 2 ITA.No.2832/PUN./2025 (Deep Automotive) Number 35. It is prayed that the appellate order may please ... aside with direction to the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits as per the provisions of section 250(6) of Income Tax Act. (Rs. 12,73,140/-) 2) That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making an addition

Hafiz Abdul Hakeem Memorial Trust, Bijnor vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Bareilly

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

ITA 892/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 254(3)

hereinafter “the Act”). As per noting of Registry, this appeal is time barred by one day. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative

Anil Kumar, Shahjahanpur vs. ITO-1(4), Shahjahanpur

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

ITA 880/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 254(3)

Kumar Talkies, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bareilly-New, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 588/LKW/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrakumar Talkies V. Income Tax Officer-1(1) Punjabi Market, Hospital Road, Fashion Point, 56, Civil Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Lines Near Prasad Cinema, Bareily-243001. Pan:Aaafk0045M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(3)Section 271Section 50C(2)

Lima Loundes Marie, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

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

ITA 3957/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Kumar,S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148A

assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 18 days. However, the Ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal ... materials available on record. The only issue that arises for our consideration is whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 18 days in filing the appeal before him. The assessee sought condonation of delay on the ground that the delay occurred because

Sasihithlu Venkateshi Srilakshmiprasad, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysore

In the result, we restore the whole issue back to the file of the Ld

ITA 2259/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mrs. Sasihithlu Venkateshi Srilakshmiprasad, No. 412, 1St Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Veeneshamanna Road, Ward 1(1), Vs. Fortmohalla Agrahara, Mysore. Mysore – 570 004. Pan: Gpxps4397C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CA

Section 133Section 142Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148A

sufficient cause and ignorance of the law cannot be stated to be an excuse and therefore he did not condone the delay of 119 days stating that the appellant's unawareness about the passing of the order is her own negligence and therefore the delay was not condoned and Appeal ... consultant, contacted a Chartered Accountant who advised her to file the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with an application for condonation of delay. The Assessee filed the same. The Ld. CIT(A) stated that ignorance of law cannot be considered as an excuse for not doing a particular thing

Mr. Yogesh Santosh Gulvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office Ward 1(4), Mumbai

Accordingly Ground No.1 to 14 raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 554/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: this tribunal on the following grounds as under:- 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding the case on merits and without appreciating the facts submitted in the Grounds of Appeal.

For Appellant: None

Section 144Section 147Section 69A

reason there was a delay of 71 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Assessee has made an application seeking condonation of delay which is supported by a duly sworn affidavit. We note that the Assessee has also filed registered 4 Assessment Year 2012-2013 sale deed

Viren Vallabhdas Dhakan, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 34/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115bSection 143(3)Section 234aSection 250Section 271ASection 271aSection 68

outset, that the appeal filed late by 363 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The relevant para of the application for delay is as under; “That the impugned order u/s 250 of the Act dated ... sufficient cause" for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. In the interest of justice, we take a judicious view and we condoned the delay in filing appeal by 363 days. 7. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 30.08.2017 declaring therein

The Ludhiana Lic of India Employees Co-Operative Non-Agricultural Thrift & Credit Society Limited, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana

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

ITA 970/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: None (submissions)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

dated 08.09.2022. The appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed with delay and the assessee had also moved an application seeking condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the same. The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the request for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal ... written submissions filed before the Tribunal, the assessee has contended that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the request for condonation of delay and dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the issues raised on merits. It has been submitted that the delay occurred due to bona fide reasons

Hasambhai Ahmadbhai Adhiya, Bhavnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(8), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 2457/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Tr Senthil Kumar(Assessment Year: 2021-22 Hasambhai Ahmadbhai Adhiya, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Vada Nera Chowk, Ward 1(8), Ramdev Pir Street, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar-364001, Gujarat. [Pan :Aefpa9191 P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kunal Shangvi, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rp Rastogi , Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kunal Shangvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri RP Rastogi , CIT. DR

Section 14Section 270A

that during the appellate proceedings the assessee has made submission along with the relevant documents & information and also mentioned the reasons for the condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee as not admitted. We also find that assessee

Ravipati Radha Bai, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2022/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.2022/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Ravipati Radha Bai [[ The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 028. Ward-7(1), Vs. Telangana. Hyderabad – 500 084. Pan Aaihr4276B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri H Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Sri H Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS Reema Yadav, Sr. AR

Section 144Section 250

ITA.No.2022/Hyd./2025 2. There is a delay of 270 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee is an old lady of 72 years and was carrying out the business ... amount to gross injustice to the assessee. 4 ITA.No.2022/Hyd./2025 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that when the assessee is doing business then, an excuse cannot be made that the business as well as the tax matter

Bethany Mennonite Brethren Church, Mahabubnagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

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

ITA 2012/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.2012/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Bethany Mennonite The Income Tax Officer, Brethren Church, Ward-1, Vs. Mahabubnagar - 509301. Mahabubnagar. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aacab3321J (Applicant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri S Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Mathivanan S A, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Sri S Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Mathivanan S A, Sr. AR

Section 148Section 148A

erroneous both on facts and in law; 2) The learned CIT (A) is not justified in deciding the appeal in limini without condoning the delay of 56 days in filing the appeal. 3) The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have seen that reckoning the date of order of assessment ... submitted that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine being barred by limitation after declining to condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal. He has referred to the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and submitted that in Para no.6