← 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

Harsha Mukesh Vora, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, with this direction appeal of the assessee is allowed for statical purpose

ITA 623/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalharsha Mukesh Vora Income Tax Officer 42(1)(2) 22, Vora Palace, M.G. Road, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Near Dena Bank, Kandivali West, Complex (Bkc), Mumbai 400067 Mumbai 400051 Pan No. Aaopv0839L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee Represented By Shri Priyank Ghia A/W. Simoni Shah Department Represented By Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 20/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/03/2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act. Per: Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/ Ld. Cit(A) Dated 22.03.2023 For Assessment Year 2012-13 For Assessment Year (Ay 2012-13). 2. Rival Submissions Of Both The Parties Have Been Heard & Record Perused. The Learned Authorised Representative (Ld Ar) Of The Assessee Submit That While Filing Appeal Before Cit(A), The Assessee Has Given Email Address “Voramaulik @Yahoo.Com”. However, No Notice Was Sent Through Such Email. Notice Under Section 250 Of The Act Was Sent By Ld. Cit(A) At Different Email I.E. Prajapati.Ca@Gamil.Com. Copy Of Screen Shot Of Itba Portal Is Placed On Record. The Said Email Belongs To Her Earlier Chartered Accountant (Ca), Who Has Not Informed The Assessee Or Her Present Ca Thus, The Assessee Could Not Make Compliance In Time & Ultimately Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 254(1)

know that appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by ld CIT(A), yet the assessee filed her affidavit for condonation of delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. The Ld. AR. the assessee submits that the assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed is one more ... opportunity to contest the case on merit is allowed to the assessee. There is no intentional or deliberate delay in filing appeal, rather due to the situation beyond the control of assessee. The assessee is interested in pursuing the appeal on merit. The assessee, in fact was interested to settle