This compilation indexes twelve rulings from various benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in which Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 — the provision governing condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal — was directly engaged. The cases span the period from July 2022 through July 2026 and arise from benches across Kolkata, Cochin, Surat, Indore, Allahabad, Dehradun, Agra, and Cuttack. The compilation is intended for use by in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a structured, rapidly searchable index of procedural rulings on delay condonation at the ITAT level.

Research index only. This page catalogues publicly available ITAT orders for research and reference purposes. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice, tax advice, or a recommendation of any course of action. Readers must verify all details against the full text of the original judgment and consult qualified professionals before acting on any information herein.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 confers upon the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal the power to admit an appeal after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation if the appellant satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The sub-section operates as a curative provision within the appellate framework established under Section 253, which governs the filing of appeals before the Tribunal against orders of Commissioners of Income Tax (Appeals) and certain other specified authorities. The Tribunal's power under this sub-section is discretionary and is exercised on the basis of the facts and circumstances placed before it, typically through a condonation application supported by an affidavit.

The 12 rulings

1. Sheela Shaw,Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 33(1), Kolkata

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Date: 29 July 2026
Sections engaged: 253(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No.1747/KOL/2026) was filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 11.04.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Act for Assessment Year 2017-18. Per the source preview, there was a delay of 315 days in filing the appeal, and the assessee filed an application along with an affidavit for condonation of delay narrating the reasons for the delay.

2. Ananthapuram Co-Operative vs Income Tax Officer, Ward TDS

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin
Date: 3 July 2026
Sections engaged: 253(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Per the source preview, these were stay applications (SA Nos.22 to 24/Coch/2026) arising out of ITA Nos.323, 322 & 328/Coch/2026 for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively, filed by the assessee society seeking stay of disputed demands of Rs.49,19,653/-, Rs.59,23,371/- and Rs.53,14,103/- for the respective assessment years arising out of orders passed under Section 201(1). The matter was heard on virtual hearing on 19.06.2026 and pronounced on 03.07.2026.

3. Harsiddhi Co-Op. Credit Society vs ITO, Wd. 1(1), Bharuch

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Surat
Date: 25 June 2026
Sections engaged: 253(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Per the source preview, three appeals (ITA Nos.652, 653 & 654/SRT/2025) for AYs 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 were filed by the assessee against three separate first-appeal orders all dated 15.10.2024 passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, which in turn arose out of assessment orders all dated 31.03.2022 passed by ITO, Ward-1(1), Bharuch. The appeals were directed against orders passed under Sections 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act.

4. Gunjan Jaysukhbhai Dholariya,Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(2)(1), Surat

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Surat
Date: 25 June 2026
Sections engaged: 253(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Per the source preview, the appeal (ITA No.643/SRT/2025) for AY 2018-19 was filed by the assessee against the first-appeal order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, which arose out of an assessment order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the Assessment Unit under Sections 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of the Act. The appeal was filed on grounds mentioned in the Appeal Memo (Form No.36).

5. Mahamadali Adam Patel,Bharuch vs Income Tax Officer, Bharuch

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Surat
Date: 24 June 2026
Sections engaged: 250(6), 253(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Per the source preview, the appeal (ITA No.188/SRT/2024) for AY 2014-15 was filed by the assessee against the first-appeal order dated 15.03.2023 passed by the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, which arose out of the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 passed by ITO-1(3), Bharuch. The registry was noted to have raised a procedural matter regarding the appeal at the time of filing.

6. Chandrakumar Srinivas Mehta,Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(2)(6), Surat, Surat

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Surat
Date: 24 June 2026
Sections engaged: 253(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Per the source preview, the appeal (ITA No.198/SRT/2026) for AY 2017-18 was filed by the assessee against the first-appeal order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, which arose out of an assessment order dated 07.12.2019 passed by ITO, Ward-3(2)(6), Surat. The appeal was filed on grounds mentioned in the Appeal Memo (Form No.36).

7. Ashokkumar Babubhai Bhimani,Navsari vs ITO Ward 1, Navsari, Navsari, Gujarat

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Surat
Date: 22 June 2026
Sections engaged: 253(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Per the source preview, the appeal (ITA No.539/SRT/2026) for AY 2012-13 was filed by the assessee against the first-appeal order dated 27.07.2023 passed by the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, which arose out of the assessment order dated 01.12.2017 passed by ITO, Ward-1, Navsari. The appeal was filed on grounds mentioned in the Appeal Memo (Form No.36).

8. Narendra Kumar Mishra,Bhopal vs ITO-3(1), Bhopal, Bhopal

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore
Date: 27 February 2026
Sections engaged: 10, 253(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Per the source preview, the appeal (ITA No.233/Ind/2025) for AY 2020-21 was filed by the assessee against the first-appeal order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, which arose out of an assessment order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Assessment Unit under Sections 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The registry informed that the present appeal was delayed by 547 days and was therefore time-barred, and the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay.

9. 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: Per the source preview, the appeal (ITA No.135/ALLD/2025) for AY 2017-18 was preferred by the assessee against the NFAC order dated 09.02.2023. The assessee had originally filed a return declaring total income of Rs.8,30,470/-, which the CPC assessed at Rs.16,12,650/-; the NFAC partly allowed the appeal by deleting an addition of Rs.4,94,698/- while sustaining an addition of Rs.2,87,478/- out of the total addition of Rs.7,82,176/- under the head 'income from other sources'. The assessee then approached the Tribunal challenging the NFAC order.

10. Abhishek Agarwal,Dehradun vs ITO, W-1(1)(1), Dehradu

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Dehradun
Date: 12 September 2025
Sections engaged: 253(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Per the source preview, both appeals (ITA Nos.103 & 104/DDN/2025) for AYs 2013-14 and 2015-16 were filed against the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi orders both dated 26.06.2024. The present appeal was found to be delayed by 309 days, and the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay supported by a duly sworn affidavit; the affidavit noted that an appeal order was passed by the NFAC on 26.06.2024 dismissing the appeal and upholding the assessment order.

11. Adarsh Singh Kushwah,Gwalior vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra
Date: 6 August 2025
Sections engaged: 253(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Per the source preview, the appeal (ITA No.289/Agr/2025) for AY 2017-18 was filed by the assessee against the NFAC/CIT(A) order dated 13.01.2025, arising out of an assessment order dated 29.12.2019. There was a delay of 74 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, and the assessee filed a condonation application along with an affidavit setting out the relevant facts for the Tribunal's consideration.

12. Ravi Metallics Limited, Rourkela vs Pr.CIT, Sambalpur

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cuttack
Date: 5 July 2022
Sections engaged: 253(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Per the source preview, the appeal for AY 2014-15 was found, on perusal of the record, to be barred by 686 days. The authorised representative filed an application along with an affidavit for condonation of delay, submitting that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but was caused by forced shutdown and lockdown along with travel restrictions arising from the Covid-19 pandemic, which made it impossible to consult and prepare the appeal with the entrusted authorised legal consultant.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Condonation applications are universal across the dataset. Every case in this compilation involved a delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, with condonation applications supported by sworn affidavits being the consistent procedural mechanism invoked by appellants across multiple benches and years.
Delay quantum varies widely. The delays quantified in the source previews range from 74 days (Case 11, Adarsh Singh Kushwah) to 686 days (Case 12, Ravi Metallics Limited), with several cases recording delays in the range of 300–547 days, indicating that courts routinely encounter appeals filed significantly beyond the statutory limitation period.
Covid-19 as a stated reason for delay appears in earlier cases. The Ravi Metallics Limited ruling (2022) explicitly records the Covid-19 pandemic — including forced shutdowns, lockdowns, and travel restrictions — as the cause of delay, a pattern common in ITAT filings during and immediately after the pandemic period.
NFAC orders are the most frequent immediate impugned orders. Across multiple cases (Cases 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11), the appeal to the ITAT arose from an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, reflecting the operational transition to the faceless appeal regime and its downstream effect on ITAT filing timelines.
The compilation spans multiple ITAT benches across geographies. Rulings are drawn from Kolkata, Cochin, Surat, Indore, Allahabad, Dehradun, Agra, and Cuttack benches, indicating that delay condonation under Section 253(5) is a recurring procedural issue across the country and not concentrated in any single jurisdiction.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is a starting-point research index, not a definitive legal digest. Each entry above reflects only the information available in the source preview and identity fields extracted from the TaxNoticeAI corpus. Because the outcome field for every case in this dataset is recorded as "Outcome not specified in source," researchers should retrieve and review the full text of each judgment — available on indiankanoon.org or the relevant official court portal — before drawing any conclusion about the Tribunal's reasoning or final disposition on the condonation application or on the merits.

When using this index for precedent research, verify whether the ruling has been the subject of any subsequent appeal to the High Court or Supreme Court, or whether it has been stayed, reversed, or distinguished by a later coordinate or larger bench. The ITAT's decisions on condonation are fact-specific and discretionary; a ruling granting or refusing condonation in one set of circumstances does not automatically bind the Tribunal in a case with different facts. Researchers should also check for any relevant CBDT instructions, circulars, or notifications that may have a bearing on the limitation or condonation framework applicable to the relevant assessment year.

For practitioners using this index in the context of live matters, it is advisable to cross-reference the delay quantum and the nature of the cause shown in each case against the full judgment text, since the source previews available here may not capture the complete reasoning of the Tribunal on the sufficiency of cause. The patterns noted above are derived solely from the information present in the source previews and should be treated as indicative rather than comprehensive.

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(5) Condonation of Delay: 12 ITAT Rulings (2022–2026)