← 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

Sampat Mal Parakh, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2238/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2238/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Sampat Mal Parakh 16 Bonfield Lane, Room No.85, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal Vs Ito, Ward-6(3), Kolkata Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Pan No. :Affpp 2940 A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Ruchi Agrawal, Ar : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr.Dr : 03/07/2025 : 03/07/2025 (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आदेश / Order This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Id. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 31.05.2023, Passed For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. An Adjournment Application Has Been Filed Wherein One Ms. Ruchi Agarwal, Appeared, Who Is Ca & She Was Not In Uniform. Consequently, The Adjournment Application Is Rejected & The Appeal Is Disposed Off. 3. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 465 Days For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating As Under :- “08 November, 2024 The Hon'Ble Members, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 225С. А. Ј. С Bose Road Kolkata-700020 P. A. N. Affpp 2940A Dear Sir. Re: Sampat Mal Parakh

Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

AFFPP 2940A Dear Sir. Re: Sampat Mal Parakh Assessment Year 2010-11 2 ITA No.2238/KOL/2024 Petition for Condonation of Delay in filing appeal against order of CIT (Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi dated 31-05-2023 1.0 This is to bring to your notice that order u/s 250 dated ... going to gain anything from it. 8.0 In light of the aforesaid factual and legal position, it is humbly prayed that the delay in filing appeal of 465 days be condoned and appeal memo be admitted and the appeal be decided on merits. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Sampat mal Parakh) (Sampat

Tapan Kumar Sethy, Cuttack vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Cuttack

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

ITA 227/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Tapan Kumar Sethy Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Purighat Road, Telenga Bazar , Cuttack Cuttack- 753009 Pan/Gir No. Blzps 1048 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhanshu Kr Das, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02 /07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 15/06/2022 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Cuttack/10917/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 952 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Dated 7.4.2025 Supported With Affidavit Stating The Reasons That Due To Serious Illness Of The Assessee’S Mother & Change Of P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhanshu Kr Das, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Kr Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 253(3)

DCIT reported in [2023] 156 taxmann.com 361 (Madras) wherein it is held that where assessee had not given 'sufficient cause' for condoning huge delay in filing appeal, therefore, the delay could not be condoned. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and also the condonation petition filed by the assessee