This compilation indexes twelve Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rulings — pronounced between September 2025 and July 2026 — in which Section 253(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 arose as a procedural issue. Each ruling involved an assessee filing an appeal before the ITAT beyond the statutory time limit, triggering the Tribunal's jurisdiction to examine whether the delay ought to be condoned. The compilation is intended for in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a structured, bench-by-bench reference point for tracking how various ITAT benches across India have dealt with belated appeals at the threshold stage.

Disclaimer: This page is a structured research index of publicly available tribunal orders. It is not legal advice, tax advice, or a recommendation of any course of action. Readers must independently verify each ruling against the full judgment text and check for any subsequent stay, reversal, or appellate development before placing reliance on it.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 253(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 prescribes the time limit within which an aggrieved party may file an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) or other specified authorities. The section sets a sixty-day period, ordinarily running from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the appellant. Where an appeal is filed after the expiry of this period, the Tribunal does not automatically reject it; instead, the Tribunal possesses the power — most commonly exercised in conjunction with Section 253(5) — to condone the delay if the appellant satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. The determination of "sufficient cause" is fact-specific, and the Tribunal weighs factors such as the bona fides of the delay, whether the delay was intentional or deliberate, and whether any prejudice would be caused to the opposite party.

The 12 rulings

1. Suman Kumar,Iitl Nimbus The Hyde vs ITO Ward 5(3)(4), G Budh Nagar

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 17 July 2026
Sections engaged: 250, 253(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal in ITA No. 3653/Del/2026 for assessment year 2017-18 arose from an appellate order passed under Section 250 of the Act. At the outset, the Tribunal observed that the appeal was filed belatedly by 130 days beyond the time stipulated under Section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee filed a condonation application stating that he was out of India and was unaware of the appellate order passed by the CIT(A) when the limitation period ran.

2. Geeta Devi,Unnao vs Income Tax Officer-2(4), Unnao

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow
Date: 1 July 2026
Sections engaged: 154, 155(15), 253(3), 50C(2)(b), 56(2)(x)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal vide I.T.A. No. 774/Lkw/2024 was filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018-19 against an appellate order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal was filed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 253(3) of the Act; the assessee submitted an application duly supported by an affidavit, pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee, and the learned Senior Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the condonation application.

3. Bridging Culture And Arts vs ITO Ward 1(2), Kolkata

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Date: 29 June 2026
Sections engaged: 253(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal in I.T.A. No. 2036/KOL/2025 covering assessment years 2023-24 to 2028-29 was directed against an order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Kolkata. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was barred by limitation under Section 253(3) of the Act by a small delay of 3 days, and that the assessee did not file a formal petition for condonation of delay; however, the Tribunal condoned the minor delay on finding that it was not deliberate and intentional, and admitted the appeal for hearing.

4. Basant Lal Gupta,Sidhi vs Income Tax Officer Ward-1, , Rewa

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jabalpur
Date: 6 March 2026
Sections engaged: 253(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: These appeals — I.T.A. Nos. 129, 130, 131 and 132/JAB/2024 — were filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-11 against appellate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In the appeals vide ITA Nos. 129 and 132/JAB/2024, the filings were beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 253(3) of the Act; the assessee submitted condonation applications pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond his control, and the Senior Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to those applications.

5. Vipulkumar Parbhubhai Patel,Surat vs ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Surat
Date: 27 November 2025
Sections engaged: 250, 253(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal in ITA No. 741/SRT/2025 arose from an order passed under Section 250 of the Act dated 05.12.2024 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for assessment year 2016-17. The date recorded in CASE_FACTS is 27 November 2025, which corresponds to the date of hearing per the source preview; the source preview notes the pronouncement date as 24/12/2025 — researchers should retrieve the full order to confirm the operative pronouncement date. The source preview records that the assessee raised grounds including adjudication of a legal ground and a request for personal hearing, with the appeal proceeded with before the Surat Bench.

6. Madhvi Ajitkumar Ranka ,Navsari vs ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Surat
Date: 26 November 2025
Sections engaged: 250, 253(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal in ITA No. 124/SRT/2025 arose from an order passed under Section 250 of the Act dated 30.05.2024 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for assessment year 2017-18. The source preview indicates that the assessee challenged the treatment of gifts received, with the appeal filed before the Surat Bench; the source preview contains a year discrepancy in the order footer (showing both 26/11/2025 and 26/11/2024) — researchers should retrieve the full order to confirm the operative date, and should treat the date_of_order field (2025-11-26) as authoritative for indexing purposes.

7. Meenu, Govindpur, Allahabad vs Income Tax Officer Cpc (NFAC, Delhi)

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad
Date: 21 November 2025
Sections engaged: 253(3), 253(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal in ITA No. 135/ALLD/2025 was preferred by the assessee against an order dated 09.02.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for assessment year 2017-18. Per the source preview, the assessee had filed a return declaring total income of Rs. 8,30,470/-, the CPC assessed total income at Rs. 16,12,650/-, and the NFAC partly allowed the assessee's first appeal by deleting an addition of Rs. 4,94,698/- while sustaining an addition of Rs. 2,87,478/- out of the total addition made under the head 'income from other sources'; the assessee then approached the Tribunal challenging the NFAC order.

8. Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta,Surat vs ITO, Ward-1(5), Bharuch

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Surat
Date: 10 November 2025
Sections engaged: 253(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal in ITA No. 60/SRT/2025 arose from an order passed under Section 250 of the Act dated 02.08.2024 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for assessment year 2013-14. The Tribunal noted at the outset that the appeal was barred by limitation by 81 days under Section 253(3) of the Act, and the assessee filed an affidavit giving reasons for the delay in filing the appeal.

9. Usman Vali Patel,Bharuch Gujarat vs Ward 1(2), Income Tax Officer, Bharuch

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Surat
Date: 3 November 2025
Sections engaged: 250, 253(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal in ITA No. 183/SRT/2025 arose from an order passed under Section 250 of the Act dated 06.02.2024 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for assessment year 2011-12. The Tribunal recorded at the threshold that the appeal was barred by limitation by 318 days under Section 253(3) of the Act, and the assessee filed an affidavit giving reasons for the delay in filing the appeal; the source preview contains a year discrepancy in the order footer (showing both 03/11/2025 and 03/11/2024) — researchers should retrieve the full order to confirm the operative pronouncement date, and should treat the date_of_order field (2025-11-03) as authoritative for indexing purposes.

10. Shervani Sugar Syndicate Limited,C/O vs National Faceless Assessment Centre

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad
Date: 30 September 2025
Sections engaged: 147, 253(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: These two appeals — ITA Nos. 137 and 138/ALLD/2025 — were filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 against respective appellate orders each dated 14.02.2025. For convenience, both appeals were heard together and disposed of by way of a consolidated order; the Tribunal first took up ITA No. 138/ALLD/2025 pertaining to assessment year 2012-13, with the Section 253(3) limitation framework applying to the admissibility stage of the proceedings.

11. Veena Singh,Gwalior vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Gwalior

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra
Date: 29 September 2025
Sections engaged: 250(6), 253(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal in ITA No. 324/Agr/2025 was preferred by the assessee against an order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi under Section 250 of the Act for assessment year 2015-16, wherein the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the assessee's first appeal ex parte. The Tribunal noted that the appeal appeared time barred by 172 days per the Registry's report; however, as the assessee had mentioned in Form No. 36 the date of service of the impugned order as 19.06.2025, the Tribunal observed that in view of Section 253(3) of the Act the appeal appeared to be belated by a single day only.

12. Dwarkesh & Co.,Surat vs ITO, Ward- 2(3)(1), Surat

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Surat
Date: 26 September 2025
Sections engaged: 253(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal in ITA No. 61/SRT/2025 arose from an order passed under Section 250 of the Act dated 18.01.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for assessment year 2015-16. The appeal was filed before the Surat Bench of the ITAT, with Section 253(3) of the Act governing the limitation question at the threshold; the source preview does not contain further substantive detail beyond the procedural framing.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Condonation application as a near-universal threshold step. Across the majority of these rulings, the Tribunal's first recorded action was an examination of whether the appeal was filed within the period stipulated under Section 253(3). In cases such as Suman Kumar (130-day delay), Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta (81-day delay), and Usman Vali Patel (318-day delay), the delay quantum was recorded expressly, and the assessee's affidavit or condonation application formed the gateway to any merits hearing.
Revenue non-objection as a facilitating factor. In multiple cases — including Geeta Devi (ITAT Lucknow) and Basant Lal Gupta (ITAT Jabalpur) — the source previews record that the Senior Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the assessee's condonation application. This posture by the Revenue appears to have smoothed the path toward the Tribunal entertaining the delay application.
Minor delays condoned without formal application. In Bridging Culture And Arts (ITAT Kolkata), the Tribunal condoned a 3-day delay even in the absence of a formal condonation petition, on the basis that the delay was not deliberate and intentional. This contrasts with cases involving triple-digit delays where affidavit-backed applications were required.
Date-of-service disputes affecting delay computation. The Veena Singh ruling (ITAT Agra) illustrates that the Registry's computation of delay and the assessee's stated date of service of the impugned order can differ materially — in that case, the Registry calculated a 172-day delay while the assessee's Form No. 36 entry suggested the delay under Section 253(3) was only a single day. This highlights the importance of the date-of-service record in limitation calculations.
Geographic spread with ITAT Surat as the most represented bench. Of the 12 rulings, five emanate from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Surat (Cases 5, 6, 8, 9, and 12), followed by two from ITAT Allahabad (Cases 7 and 10). The remaining five are spread across ITAT Delhi, ITAT Lucknow, ITAT Kolkata, ITAT Jabalpur, and ITAT Agra — indicating that Section 253(3) threshold questions arise uniformly across benches and geographies rather than being concentrated in any single jurisdiction.

How to use this compilation

This index is organised as a quick-reference tool for researchers who need to locate rulings in which Section 253(3) arose as a procedural threshold issue before various ITAT benches. Each ruling entry sets out the bench, the date of pronouncement, the sections engaged, and the outcome direction as recorded in the source data. Researchers should treat the "Procedural / substantive ground" paragraphs as a summary drawn from the available text preview of each order, not as a substitute for the full judgment text. Before placing reliance on any ruling, always retrieve and read the complete order from the official source — indiankanoon.org, the ITAT's own portal, or the relevant High Court portal — to verify the precise reasoning, the final dispositional direction, and any conditions imposed by the Tribunal. Where the source preview discloses a discrepancy between the hearing date and the pronouncement date, or contains a year inconsistency in the order footer, researchers should treat the full order text as the controlling document.

Researchers should also check whether any of these orders have been subsequently stayed, reversed, or modified in proceedings before a High Court or the Supreme Court. Tribunal orders are subject to challenge under Section 260A before the jurisdictional High Court, and a stay or reversal at that stage would materially affect the precedential value of the ruling. Similarly, check for any CBDT circulars or instructions that may have a bearing on the limitation and condonation framework under Section 253, as administrative guidance can affect how field officers and Departmental Representatives approach these threshold questions.

Finally, researchers comparing delay-condonation outcomes across benches should be mindful that the "sufficient cause" standard is applied on the specific facts of each case. The quantum of delay, the explanation offered by the assessee, the Revenue's stance, and the Tribunal's assessment of bona fides all interact in a fact-sensitive manner. Extrapolating a general rule from any single ruling — or even from this compilation as a whole — without reading the full reasoning of the Tribunal in each case would be methodologically unsound.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 253(3) Condonation of Delay: 12 ITAT Rulings (2025–2026)