← All Phrases

“delay in filing appeal”

AppealsSection 249Section 2491,894 judgments

The decision most relied on for delay in filing appeal is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on delay in filing appeal

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.

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.

CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors.
153 ITR 596 · 1985 · High Court
171
citing judgments

Where a reasonable cause for delay in filing an appeal exists, the period of delay may not be a relevant factor for condonation. The court has condoned even substantial delays, such as nearly 21 years, based on the presence of a reasonable cause.

Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Ms Katiji and Others
167 ITR 5 · 1987 · Supreme Court
164
citing judgments

The principle of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay in filing appeals requires a liberal interpretation to ensure substantial justice, but delay will not be condoned if sufficient cause is not satisfactorily explained by the appellant.

Judgments citing delay in filing appeal

Darul Ullom Fatimatuz-Zahra, Banaskantha vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 1019/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1018-1019/Ahd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : N.A Darul Uloom Fatimatuz-Zahra, Khadal Pura Vas Basu, Khadalpura Vas, Basu Vadgam, Banaskantha-385520. (Gujarat) बनाम Income Tax, (Exemption), V/S. Ahmedabad स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaetd2206K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Urjita Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 19/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(E)"], Both Arising From Rejection Of The Assessee'S Applications, One For Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act"] Dated 17.08.2023 & The Other For Approval Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act Dated 24.08.2023.

For Appellant: Ms. Urjita Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

notice issued by the authority and not submitted appeal within stipulated time against rejection order, hence we will require permission for condonation of delay in filing appeal. 3. Appellant craves to add, alter or delete any grounds either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal ... Fatimatuz-Zahra Vs. CIT(E) Assessment Year N.A 5 within stipulated time against rejection order, hence we will require permission for condonation of delay in filing appeal. 3. Appellant craves to add, alter or delete any grounds either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal 10. During

Darul Ullom Fatimatuz-Zahra, Banaskantha vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 1018/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1018-1019/Ahd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : N.A Darul Uloom Fatimatuz-Zahra, Khadal Pura Vas Basu, Khadalpura Vas, Basu Vadgam, Banaskantha-385520. (Gujarat) बनाम /V/S. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Exemption), Ahmedabad स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaetd2206K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Urjita Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 19/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(E)"], Both Arising From Rejection Of The Assessee'S Applications, One For Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act"] Dated 17.08.2023 & The Other For Approval Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act Dated 24.08.2023.

For Appellant: Ms. Urjita Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

notice issued by the authority and not submitted appeal within stipulated time against rejection order, hence we will require permission for condonation of delay in filing appeal. 3. Appellant craves to add, alter or delete any grounds either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal ... Fatimatuz-Zahra Vs. CIT(E) Assessment Year N.A 5 within stipulated time against rejection order, hence we will require permission for condonation of delay in filing appeal. 3. Appellant craves to add, alter or delete any grounds either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal 10. During