“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

Tulsi Trust, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7217/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7217/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2014-15) Tulsi Trust, B-60/61 C/O Bajaj Auto Ltd., Naraina Industrial Area, Phase Ii, New Delhi 110028 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaatt-0503-H बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Circle 49(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi 110092 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Ms. Vasanti Patel, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Hyderabad [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.09.2025, For The Assessment Year 2014-15, Wherein, Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed In Limine On Account Of Delay.

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80

filing of appeal before the CIT(A) had elapsed and appeal was time barred by 1190 days. The assessee filed application seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining the entire background. The CIT(A) without appreciating the facts dismissed the appeal of assessee in limine on the ground ... inordinate delay of 1190 days in filing of appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after examining the assessee’s application for condonation of delay did not find merit and dismissed 3 the appeal in limine. The ld. DR prayed for upholding the impugned order and dismissing appeal

Sh. Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-34(5), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 3671/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(3)Section 271A

dismissed as per facts available on record on merit not withstanding its dismissal in limine consequent to rejection of appellant plea for condonation of delay in filing of these two appeals" is not based on correct appreciation of facts on record and therefore unsustainable. 2.2That conclusion of the learned ... dismissed as per facts available on record on merit not withstanding its dismissal in limine consequent to rejection of appellant plea for condonation of delay in filing of these two appeals" is not based on correct appreciation of facts on record and therefore unsustainable. 2.2That conclusion of the learned

Sh. Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-34(5), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 3670/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(3)Section 271A

Naresh Kumar, Shanti Nagar, Model Town, Panipat, Haryana, India vs. Assessing Officer, Ward No. One, Panipat Haryana, India

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3656/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 282

before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 15 days 4 28.02.2025 CIT(A) passed his order not condoning the delay of 33 of days in filing the appeal and the appeal was not admitted for adjudication ITA Nos- 3654 & 3656/Del/2025 Naresh Kumar 5. 31.05.2025 Against the said order ... about the above said impugned order from his CA. 20.12.2023 The appellant filed the CIT(A) along with the application of condonation of delay giving sufficient cause of delay on 20.12.2023 before Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal ADDL/JCIT (A)-4 Mumbai. 28.02.2025 CIT(A) dismissed the appeal dated

Naresh Kumar, Shanti Nagar, Model Town, Panipat, Haryana, India vs. Assessing Officer, Ward One, Panipat, Haryana, India

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3654/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 282

Aradhya Ghosh, Kolkata vs. Deptuy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-67(1), Delhi

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

ITA 5210/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Shri Srinath L, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 270A

notice that the appeal filed by the assessee before the ITAT is barred by 13 days. He submitted that an application for condonation of delay was filed stating the reasons for the delay. He submitted that the delay was not intentional or deliberate and was beyond the assessee’s control ... hence he pleaded to condone the same. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue has no objection in condoning the delay. 5. We have heard both the counsels on the issue of condonation of delay. In our considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay

Jagbir Saroha, Sonipat vs. ITO, Sonipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4759/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

that Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the appeal was filed delayed by 129 days and no application for condonation of delay was filed. Ld. AR submits that Form No.35 was filed within the prescribed time however, it was not verified within the prescribed time limit ... facts, in our considered opinion the assessee has reasonable and sufficient cause in filling the appeal delayed by 129 days. Accordingly, we condone the delay and remand the matter back to Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being

Kothari Kutumb (Devashibara) Parivar Trust - Gondal, Gondal vs. CIT Exemption, Ahmedabad

ITA 339/RJT/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Ms. Manalee Kamdar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

outset, that the appeal filed late by 205 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The crux of the application for delay is as under; “1. That the Appellant, Kothari Kutumb (Devashibara) Parivar Trust - Gondal, is a duly registered

The Alewa Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Limited, Alewa, Jind vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Jind

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

ITA 768/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

parte assessment. 5. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred in rejecting the appeal on the ground of condonation for delay in filing of appeal. 2 6. That the appellant prays that the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) NFAC ... served on 31/10/2023, but the appeal was not instituted until 06/05/2024, resulting in an extraordinary delay of 157 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, attributing the lapse to the health issues of their Chartered Accountant. However, the CIT(A) found that the appellant failed to provide material 3 evidence

Rajib Dutta Gupta, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 62(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2078/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

Though the Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 41 days, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay of 50 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee submitted that the assessee was suffering from illness in support of which ... assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA No.: 2078/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajib Dutta Gupta. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

Shreya Dey Sarkar, Pune, Maharashtra vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(4), Raiganj, West Dinajpur

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

ITA 1649/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250

Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 54 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the appellant being a salaried employee working in the domain of software development, not being aware of the intricacies ... 1649/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shreya Dey Sarkar. Inder Singh v. the State of Madhya Pradesh [2025 INSC 382] in support of the condonation of delay and prayed that the short delay of 55 days in filing the appeal may be condoned in the interest of equity and justice. After

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-, Cuddalore vs. M. Ramesh Jewellers, Tirukoyilure

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the cross- appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 587/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gautam S. Mukundan, JCIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69BSection 69C

find that there is a delay of 89 days in appeal filed by the assessee for which an affidavit and a petition for condonation of delay, setting out the reasons for such delay, has been filed. After considering the affidavit and the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3049/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkataraman, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69Section 69ASection 69C

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)’] has erred, both in law and on facts, in refusing to condone the delay in filing of the appeal by the appellant, and thereby failed to adjudicate the appeal on its merits. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have ... preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal. 7. The Ld.AR appearing on behalf of the assessee, drew our attention to the reasons seeking condonation of delay in preferring the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR submitted that the delay had occurred due to circumstances beyond the control

Sankar Rudrasenan, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2895/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Officer, the assessee filed two separate appeals before the ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in limine without condoning the delay in filing the quantum appeal with a delay of 3 months and 2 days and penalty appeal with a delay of 4 days, stating ... case and to meet the ends of justice, we deem it fit to provide one more opportunity for the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A) as the assessee had filed the condonation of delay in his form 35 itself

Sankar Rudrasenan, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2894/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

M Ramesh Jewellers, Tirukoilur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Villupuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the cross- appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1539/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gautam S. Mukundan, JCIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69BSection 69C

The Karnataka State Regn and Stamps Department Officials Multi-Purpose Co-Op Society Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1518/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian – JCIT DR

Section 57

therefore the Registry issued a Defect Memo stating that the Appeal is barred by 282 days. The Assessee has filed an application for condoning the delay. The main reason shown by the Assessee is that Assessee on the receipt of the original order was advised not to challenge the same ... erstwhile consultant and as soon as the Assessee received the correct advice it diligently filed the Appeal. 3. The Assessee supported the condonation of delay petition by filing an Affidavit of Shri Gajarajan Prakash, who is aged about 82 years and the president of the Society. He also confirmed

Khushi Sanjay Khandar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6758/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147

delay of 329 days in filing the appeal for assessment year 2016–17. In support of the prayer for condonation of delay, the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the circumstances leading to such delay. The affidavit filed for assessment year 2018–19 contains similar averments as those made

Khushi Sanjay Khandar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6757/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147

Jm Financial Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)-Ward-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

ITA 6558/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151A

deleted. 2. Without prejudice to above Form 10 filed along with the additional grounds of appeal, with application for condonation of delay. The delay in filing the Form 10 being technical, the delay may be condoned.” 2.1. On perusal of the additional grounds, it is noted that no new facts ... time before this Tribunal, and assessee has sought admission of the said document by way of additional ground and also has prayed for condonation of delay in filing the said form. 4.1. In the preceding paragraph, we have already admitted the ground raised by assessee for assessment year