← 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

Randheja Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3 Now Ward-1, Gandhinagar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 649/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Randheja Dudh Utpadak The Ito, Ward-3 Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs Now Ward-1 To-Randheja Gandhinagar. Tal: Gandhinagar Pin : 382 620 Pan : Aacar 5164 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short Referred To As Ld.Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.11.2021 Pertaining To Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Notified That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 581 Days. In Order To Explain The Reasons For The Impugned Delay, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Cit(A)/Nfac Order Was Passed Against The Assessee On 22.11.2021. However, Due To Covid-19 Pandemic Limitation For Filing Appeal Before The Court Of Law Was Extended Till February, 2022. Therefore, After Expiry Of The Limitation For Filing Of The Appeal On Feb., 2022, The Assessee Was Required To File Appeal Within 60 Days Of The Same I.E. By April, 2022. But The Assessee Could File The Appeal On

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.DR
Section 250

that in view of the affidavit filed by the assessee and the CA of the society, it is undisputed fact that the impugned delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal by 581 days is attributable to their earlier Chartered Accountant, Shri Nilesh Pandya, who has stated to be suffering from

Mannur Ramjee Rajkumar Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO Ncw 5(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 980/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.980/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mannur Ramjee Rajkumar Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, New No.7, Old No.4, Vs. Corporate Ward 3 (3) 1St Cross, Amman Koil Street, Chennai. Seethammal Colony Extn, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Pan: Aaepr 7326J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21.03.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 On 04.08.2017 Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.2,64,51,270/-. The Cpc, Bangalore Passed The Order U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘’The Act’) Dated 28.03.2019 Determining The Taxable Total Income At Rs.2,95,12,060/-. Being Aggrieved, Assessee Challenged The Said Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Before The Ld.Cit(A) Wherein The Assessee Has Not Given Proper Chance To Explain The Reason For Delay In Filing Appeal Hence, The Ld.Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Ex-Parte.

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)

before the ld.CIT(A) wherein the assessee has not given proper chance to explain the reason for delay in filing appeal hence, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had not properly followed the principles ... appellant further prayed that if an adequate opportunity of hearing is given before ld.CIT(A), assessee will demonstrate the reasons for delay in filing appeal and prosecute the appeal properly. Ld.CIT-DR relied upon order of ld.CIT(A) and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 4. We have gone through

Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the captioned appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 73/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.72&73/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan:Aaacu5211A] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 24 , 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 04.01.2024 & 05.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Has Been Preferred Assailing The Confirmation Of Quantum Additions Made By The Assessing Officer, Whereas, Ita No.73/Kol/2024 Is Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, Which Is Consequential To The Quantum Additions Contested By The Assessee In Appeal No.72/Ko/2024. We First Take Quantum Appeal In Ita No.72/Kol/2024. I.T.A. No.72&73/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

explaining the aforesaid reasons for delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A). The ld. Counsel, therefore, has submitted that the delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A) was not intentional but due to the aforesaid reasons. 3. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied

Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the captioned appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 72/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.72&73/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan:Aaacu5211A] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata…….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 24 , 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 04.01.2024 & 05.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Has Been Preferred Assailing The Confirmation Of Quantum Additions Made By The Assessing Officer, Whereas, Ita No.73/Kol/2024 Is Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, Which Is Consequential To The Quantum Additions Contested By The Assessee In Appeal No.72/Ko/2024. We First Take Quantum Appeal In Ita No.72/Kol/2024. I.T.A. No.72&73/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

explaining the aforesaid reasons for delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A). The ld. Counsel, therefore, has submitted that the delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A) was not intentional but due to the aforesaid reasons. 3. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied

Neethivanan Jeyasudha, Chennai vs. Addl JCIT (A), Jodhpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 449/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.449/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Neethivanan Jeyasudha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No.P3, Old No.P13, Non Corporate Ward 19(4) 19Th Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 040. [Pan: Aplpj5195D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Varadarajan, Cma ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Mukundan, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. Varadarajan, CMAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Mukundan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

Instead of rectification order as there was no change in order, in appeal form I have mistakenly stated there was no delay in filing appeal, and same was asked clarification from the department on 29-10-2023. I was unable to give reply for the same in Income tax portal ... West Bengal V. the Administrator, Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749." 9. There is no doubt that if the Assessee demonstrates that the delay in filing appeal was due to valid mitigating circumstances such as medical condition then the appellate authority can condone delay and consider appeal on its merits