← 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

Gajamfar Ali, Rohru vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Rampur, Ward Rampur

ITA 1247/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: us.2. The Ld. AR, drawing attention to assessee's background, pleaded for adjudication of appeal on merits. It has been stated that quantum appeal is already pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeals.3. Considering the fact that the quantum appeal would have direct bearing on impugned penalties as levied by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) & u/s 271A, these penalties are to be adjudicated on merits in the light of quantum appeal. Therefore, the appe

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Sharma (Advocate) (Virtual)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Rs.5,01,260/- u/s 271(1)(c). The impugned orders of Ld. CIT(A) have dismissed the appeals in limine for want of condonation of delay of 139 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. The Ld. AR, drawing attention to assessee’s background, pleaded

Gajanfar Ali, Shimla vs. Income Tax Officer Rampur, Ward Rampur

ITA 1246/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: us.2. The Ld. AR, drawing attention to assessee's background, pleaded for adjudication of appeal on merits. It has been stated that quantum appeal is already pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeals.3. Considering the fact that the quantum appeal would have direct bearing on impugned penalties as levied by Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) & u/s 271A, these penalties are to be adjudicated on merits in the light of quantum appeal. Therefore, the appe

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Sharma (Advocate) (Virtual)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Rs.5,01,260/- u/s 271(1)(c). The impugned orders of Ld. CIT(A) have dismissed the appeals in limine for want of condonation of delay of 139 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. The Ld. AR, drawing attention to assessee’s background, pleaded

Anakala Sunitha, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1504/HYD/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 148Section 148ASection 69A

before the Tribunal was filed on 08.09.2024 and is therefore, beyond the statutory period of 30 days. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay citing illness of her mother and other circumstances. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the condonation request and after referring to relevant judicial precedents, including ... sufficient cause and that the delay was due to negligence/lack of due diligence. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly 5 Anakala Sunitha declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation without admission on merits. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Raja Shelters Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1967/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata..……………… …………….……….……Appellant Vs. Raja Shelters Pvt. Ltd…………...………………………….......……...…..…..Respondent 25A, S P Mukherjee Road, Kol-700025. [Pan: Aadcr5073Q] Appearances By: Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 02, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 27 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

days. The revenue has filed a petition for condonation of the delay. After considering the reasons cited in the petition for condonation of delay, we find that the reasons are valid and consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Sobha Chand Bhansali, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1090/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

took quite a long time and accordingly, the delay may be condoned. The ld. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing

Madras Diocesan Council Employees Provident Fund, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2497/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: 18.11.2025
Section 10(25)(ii)Section 143(1)Section 144

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 and hence

Inayat Yusuf Nadiadwala, Mumbai vs. New ITO WD 41(4)(2) Old ITO WD 31(2)(1), Bkc

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6502/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shri Virbhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 5

noticed that there is delay of 750 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay and demonstrated the reasons qua condonation of delay which 2 Mr. Inayat Yusuf Nadiawala are duly supported with duly sworn affidavit filed before ... reasons totally beyond my control. Looking at the above facts the necessary steps could not be taken, please take a lenient view and condone the delay. I came to know only when recovery started. 2. This delay is wholly unintentional & beyond the control of the appellant. The word 'Sufficient cause

M/S Andaz Trading & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO -Ward 4(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5841/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Acccountant Member

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchi RathodFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271DSection 40Section 43BSection 43C

Therefore the delay of 938 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the tribunal. The assessee has filed the petition for Condonation of Delay in this regard stating that the assessee was exploring the other options of rectifying the CIT(A)'s order who has dismissed the appeal ... case of 4 ITA N0. 5841/Mum/2025 M/s Andaz Trading & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay of 938 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. We heard the parties and perused the material on record

Ruby Sagir Ahmed Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO -41 (1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 5619/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

filing of all three appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). From the paperbook filed by the assessee, we note that affidavit seeking condonation of delay was furnished along with Form 35 which was ignored and not considered. The Ld. CIT(A) passed order without considering anything on merits

Ruby Sagir Ahmed Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO -41(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 5618/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

filing of all three appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). From the paperbook filed by the assessee, we note that affidavit seeking condonation of delay was furnished along with Form 35 which was ignored and not considered. The Ld. CIT(A) passed order without considering anything on merits

Ruby Sagir Ahmed Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 41(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 5617/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

filing of all three appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). From the paperbook filed by the assessee, we note that affidavit seeking condonation of delay was furnished along with Form 35 which was ignored and not considered. The Ld. CIT(A) passed order without considering anything on merits

Alka Kalra (Deceased) Through Lekh Raj Kalra (Husband of Deceased), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 35(5), Delhi

In the result, legal grounds

ITA 6992/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Alka Kalra (Deceased) Through Ito Ward-35(5), Lekh Raj Kalra (Husband Of Vs New Delhi-110002 Deceased) 48, D-12 Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Pan: Aajpg 2870 K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

heirs of the assessee has neither informed the AO about the death of assessee nor while filing first appeal filed an application for condonation of delay. The ld SR for the revenue prayed for dismissal of appeal. 2 Alka Kalra (Deceased) Through Lekh Raj Kalra 4. I have considered ... fact death certificate issued on 22.02.2017. The ld. CIT(A) instead of taking corrective steps, dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay. The ld. CIT(A) although dismissed the appeal of the assessee of limitation has not issued any specific show-cause notice on the issue of limitation. After

Rahul Legal Heir of Late Sh. Virendra Bhati, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Ward-5(2)(5), Noida

In the result, grounds of appeal

ITA 6946/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rahul (Legal Heir Of Late Shri Virendra Income Tax Officer, Bhati) (Auwpb4560C), 52, Village Vs Ward-5(2)(5),Aayakar Bhawan, Makauda Pali, Gautam Budh Nagar, Sector-24, Noida, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh-203207 Uttar Pradesh-201307 Pan:Eempr0637L Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 69A

depression, the assessee could filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 21.10.2021. The assessee in statement of facts pleaded such facts for condoning the delay. The learned CIT(A) instead of condoning the delay dismissed the appeal in limine. There was sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay ... Revenue submits that the assessee has not explained the delay. Though he has not seriously opposed the grounds of condonation of delay. On merits, the learned Sr. DR for the revenue submits that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer to pass the order

Narayan Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar, Odisha

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

ITA 524/CTK/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.524/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020) Narayan Mahapatra, Vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar B-7, Green Park, Jagamohan Nagar, Jagamara, Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751030 Pan No. :Afgpm 9438 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satya Prakash Sahoo, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Hyderabad, Dated 13.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. At The Outset, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 121 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein That The Delay Occurred Due To Bona Fide Reasons Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. It Has Also Been Mentioned In The Affidavit That The Assessee Is Employed With An Mnc Company, Infosys Ltd., As A Senior Delivery Manager. His Nature Of Work Requires Frequent Travel & Deputation To Bengaluru & Overseas Locations As & When Demanded By The 2 Employer. Due To These Professional Exigencies, The Assessee Was Unable To Devote The Adequate Time To Prepare & File The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time. The Contents Of The Affidavit Reads As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Satya Prakash Sahoo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

found that the appeal of the assessee is delayed by 121 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein that the delay occurred due to bona fide reasons beyond the control of the assessee. It has also been ... relevant facts in support of his claim before the ld. CIT(A) 4. In reply, ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. It was also the submission that he has also no objection if the issue is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudication

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 504/CTK/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

Odisha to provide marketing support to primary handicrafts co- operative societies since 1959. Ld AR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing of appeals before him and dismissed the appeals in limine. He submitted that the assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay ... before the ld CIT(A). Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, provides powers to the ld Commissioner of Income Appeals to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. It has been used in Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 503/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

Odisha to provide marketing support to primary handicrafts co- operative societies since 1959. Ld AR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing of appeals before him and dismissed the appeals in limine. He submitted that the assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay ... before the ld CIT(A). Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, provides powers to the ld Commissioner of Income Appeals to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. It has been used in Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 502/CTK/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

Odisha to provide marketing support to primary handicrafts co- operative societies since 1959. Ld AR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing of appeals before him and dismissed the appeals in limine. He submitted that the assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay ... before the ld CIT(A). Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, provides powers to the ld Commissioner of Income Appeals to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. It has been used in Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

Odisha to provide marketing support to primary handicrafts co- operative societies since 1959. Ld AR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing of appeals before him and dismissed the appeals in limine. He submitted that the assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay ... before the ld CIT(A). Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, provides powers to the ld Commissioner of Income Appeals to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. It has been used in Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 499/CTK/2025[2015016]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

Odisha to provide marketing support to primary handicrafts co- operative societies since 1959. Ld AR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing of appeals before him and dismissed the appeals in limine. He submitted that the assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay ... before the ld CIT(A). Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, provides powers to the ld Commissioner of Income Appeals to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. It has been used in Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/CTK/2025[2015016]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Asim Chakraborty, ld CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(d)

Odisha to provide marketing support to primary handicrafts co- operative societies since 1959. Ld AR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing of appeals before him and dismissed the appeals in limine. He submitted that the assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay ... before the ld CIT(A). Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, provides powers to the ld Commissioner of Income Appeals to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. It has been used in Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before