Limitation For Appeal From ITAT Order Begins On Receipt, Not Pronouncement: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the limitation period for filing an appeal against an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order begins when the aggrieved party receives a copy of the order, not when it is pronounced.

“Mere knowledge of the order, by way of pronouncement is not enough to hold that day to be the first day on which the limitation commences,” a division bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale observed.

The court explained that a party needs a complete copy of the order to understand its findings and reasons before deciding whether to challenge it and on what grounds.

It was hearing an application filed by GS Strategic Investments Limited seeking condonation of an 88-day delay in filing an income tax appeal against an ITAT order.

The tribunal had sent the company's claim that its long-term capital gains were exempt from tax back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. It found that the claim had not been examined during the assessment proceedings and the necessary facts were not on record.

The Revenue opposed the application, arguing that the company was aware of the tribunal's order when it was pronounced and had not adequately explained the delay.

The court examined Section 254(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rules 35 and 49 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. These provisions deal with communicating tribunal orders to the parties and the fees for obtaining copies.

The court noted that neither the Act nor the Rules requires a party to apply for or obtain a certified copy of an ITAT order. It held that limitation begins when the aggrieved party receives the order.

“In these circumstances, we are of the view that the limitation shall commence from the day on which a copy of the Judgment and Order passed by the ITAT, is received by the aggrieved party. To hold otherwise would be depriving the aggrieved party of his right to prefer a substantive appeal based on cogent grounds,” the court ruled.

The tribunal pronounced its order on October 22, 2024, and dispatched it on February 25, 2025. The company received the order on February 27, 2025. The limitation period expired on June 27, 2025, but the company filed its appeal on September 23, 2025, resulting in an 88-day delay.

The court also observed that a liberal, justice-oriented approach should ordinarily be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay, particularly where the delay does not indicate deliberate or mala fide conduct and refusing to condone it would shut out a potentially meritorious case without a decision on its merits.

It noted that the Revenue had not shown that condoning the delay would cause any irreversible or irreparable prejudice.

Finding that the company had furnished an explanation for each stage of the delay, covering the entire period, the court allowed the application and condoned the 88-day delay.

The court directed the company to remove any office objections within eight weeks and ordered that the appeal be listed for admission after their removal.

For Appellant: Advocate Madhur Agrawal along with Punit J. Shah appeared 

For Revenue: Advocate Subir Kumar along with Ashita Aggarwal appeared for the Revenue