“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

Basti Sahkari Kraya Center Vikray Samiti Limited, Basti vs. ITO, Basti

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

ITA 539/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2015-16 Basti Sahkari Kraya Center V. Income Tax Officer Vikray Samiti Limited National Faceless Raja Bazar, Purani Basti, Basti- Assessment, New Delhi- 272002, Uttar Pradesh, India. 110001. Tan/Pan: Aacab0882G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit-Dr O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 69A

under section 253(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). The assessee has submitted application, duly supported by an affidavit, for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee; and has requested to admit ... appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present ITA. No. 539/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 4 appeal

3K Technologies Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward 2-(2), Hyderabad

ITA 62/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 15(9)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant

Pro Fin Capital Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Building Mumbai

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

ITA 8617/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2017-18 Pro Fin Capital Services Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income Tax Central Circle 13(1)(2), Central 1. Pro Fin Capital Services Building, New Marine Lines, Private Limited Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 503, Western Edge 11, Western Express High Way, Mumbai- 400066 2.Pgt & Associates Chartered Accountants, 308-3098, Sahajanand Palace, Opp. Rahul Tower, Anandnagar Crossroad, Prahaladnagar, Ahmedabad-380015 Pan: Aaacp0251F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Virabhadra Mahajan , (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.03.2026

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 274Section 41(1)

assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and perusing the material available on record. 3. The assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal stating that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) came to the knowledge of the assessee only when penalty

Rotary Club of Bombay Queens Necklace Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8306/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Bijayananda Prusethrotary Club Of Bombay Vs Ito (Exem.) Ward 2(2), Mumbai Queens Necklace Charitable Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road Trust Mumbai-400020 B 41/45, Paragon Centre, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaatr4200K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PatelFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (SR DR)

Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

Bombay High Court is reproduced as below: “14. We also find that in somewhat similar circumstances, this Court had condoned the delay in filing Form No. 10B in the case of Mirae Asset Foundation V/S Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-6, Mumbai [Writ Petition No. 713 of 2025 decided ... July 2025]. Paragraph 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- “5. As far as the condonation of delay is concerned, we find that admittedly there was only 24 days delay in filing Form 10B. It is true that the application seeking condonation of delay was filed after about

Mobil Trust Series 06, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - (1)(1), Thane

Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed and all the other Grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 7559/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Raghunathan &For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 115TSection 142(1)Section 272A(1)(d)

Assessment Year 2022-2023. 2. There is delay of 172 days in filing the present appeal. The Assessee had filed application seeking condonation of delay which was accompanied by supporting affidavit. The Assessee has explained that the Assessee-trust is a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) created entirely for regulatory purpose ... Assessee was prevented by the sufficient cause from filing the present appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time and therefore, we condone the delay of 172 days in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised in the present appeal. 3. The Assessee has raised

V Y Institute of Medical Science Private Limited, Raipur vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 480/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

Delhi High Court has held that in absence of anything malafide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, the Court should normally condone the delay as the intent is always to promote substantial justice following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag ... resorting to such delay. Therefore, in the factual matrix of the present case, we find that there exists sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing this appeal as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other

Vikash Anand, Ranchi vs. ITO Ward W3(1), Ranchi

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

ITA 282/RAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayvikash Anand, I.T.O., 13B, Urmila Niwas, Saket Nagar, Ward-3(1), Vs. Hinoo, Ranchi, Doranda H.O., Ranchi. Doranda, Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Agmpa 3593 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

revenue. 3. The ld. AR has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of condonation of delay. There was delay of 148 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal

Dinesh Agarwal HUF, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Ranchi

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 263/RAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 40

record that there is a delay of 65 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal, for which a petition for condonation of delay was filed by the assessee mentioning the fact that the appeal fees was paid by challan dated 25/06/2025. However, due to certain personal engagement ... delay may be condoned. The ld. Sr.DR did not raise any serious objections. Therefore, considering the contents made in the condonation petition, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 3. On merit of the case, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer

Dinesh Agarwal HUF, Patna vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 262/RAN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 40

Arun Kumar, Jehanabad vs. NFAC, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 502/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Arun Kumar Nfac, Delhi Vs Court Area, Mohudinpur B.O, Jehanabad, Bihar-804420. (Pan: Bfhpk8482D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manab Adak, Sr. DR

assessee has given reasons for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal as follows: 3.1 It is also noticed that the above condonation of delay filed by the assessee is not supported by an affidavit and the reasons are also vague. Consequently, there is no substantial reason has been

S 778 R Pattanam Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward 2, Namakkal

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

ITA 3374/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. V. Sreeraman, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 143(3)Section 249(3)Section 68

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471) has emphatically held that a liberal approach must be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Their Lordships observed that when substantial justice and technical considerations are in conflict, the cause ... held that if the explanation does not smack of mala fides or is not intended as a dilatory tactic, the Court should ordinarily condone the delay so as to advance substantial justice. 10. Again, in Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh (6 SCC 786), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated

Sri Durga Commercials, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 3092/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250

There is a delay of 485 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. We have considered the submissions made in the condonation petition and Page ... that the assessee derived any benefit by filing the appeal belatedly. 3.3 It is well settled that while considering an application for condonation of delay, a liberal approach is required to be adopted so as to advance substantial justice, provided the explanation shows reasonable cause. In the present case

Mamatha Mahesh Shetty, Chikkamagaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 2382/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250

present appeal is filed with a delay of 210 days. The assessee has moved a petition seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining the circumstances which prevented timely filing of the appeal. Page 2 of 12 3. From the record, it is seen that the assessment order ... Katiji and Others (167 ITR 471), wherein it has been held that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Reliance is also placed on other decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts and the Tribunal

Chitradurga Zilla Reddy Jana Sangh(R), Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Exemption, Hubli

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

ITA 1625/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention on an application for condonation of delay dated 21.7.2025, which is reproduced below for ease of reference and record: Chitradurga Zilla Reddy Jana Sangha (R), Chitradurga Page ... that the delay is unintentional and no benefit can be attributed to the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly. He thus prayed to condone the delay and requested to consider the issues raised by the assessee on merits. 3.2 Perused the record and having heard ld. Counsel for the assessee

Parvati Sales Corporation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 485/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah a/wFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. DR.)

Section 143(1)Section 250

contrary, the Ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee and submitted that admittedly the Assessee failed to file any application for condonation of delay along with supporting material and even otherwise in the Form No.35 with regard to the question “whether there was any delay?”, the Assessee has specifically ... question “whether there was any delay in filing of First Appeal”. Further, the Assessee admittedly failed to file any specific/separate application for condonation of delay. It is also admitted fact that the Assessee in support of condonation of delay, has also not filed any substantive evidence and therefore the Assessee

Jaikishin Omprakash Pahuja, Ghatkopar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Kalyan, Mumbai

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

ITA 8893/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) observed that the appeal was filed with a delay of 492 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay stating that certain communications from the Department were not noticed as they were received in the junk folder of the registered email account and that ... that the delay of 492 days was inordinate. 1. The learned CIT(A) relied upon various judicial precedents aying down the principles governing condonation of delay. On the basis of the above reasoning, the learned CIT(A) declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and consequently dismissed

Sachinkumar Subrai Kanse, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 8140/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

filing of appeal before the FAA was to be condoned but the ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of assessee without condoning the delay. 3. Having gone through the aforesaid facts, we find that there were sufficient reasons which were beyond the control of the assessee and the assessee ... like ailment of his father, death of his mother and becameunemployed. We, thus find it appropriate to direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of appeal before him and decide the appeals of assessee on merits. 4. For non-prosecution the case of appeal against

Sachinkumar Subrai Kanse, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer 42(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 8139/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

Trinity Logex (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward-25(4), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7597/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7597/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Trinity Logex (India) P. Ltd., 628, Jeewan Jyoti Building, Khori, Ranpuri, New 110037 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aacct-5681-P बिाम Vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-25(4), ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Cr Building, Ito, Ip Estate, New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shir Atul Puri, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 19/02/2026 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 08.08.2025, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 21 Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Supported By Medical Records. After Perusal Of Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, But Is For The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Hence, Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing On Merits.

For Appellant: Shir Atul Puri, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 68

dated 08.08.2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The appeal is time barred by 21 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by medical records. After perusal of same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional

Srinivasa Rao Sirivuri Proprietor, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 459/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69A

Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering ... delay involved in the appeal. We thus, in Page. No 5 I.T.A.No.459/VIZ/2025 Srinivasa Rao Sirivuri terms of our aforesaid observations condone the delay of 150 days involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee before us. 9. Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate, Learned Authorised Representative (for short “Ld.AR