← 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

Bhakti Prem Padma Swetamber Jain Charitable Seva Sansthan, Udaipur vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 179/JODH/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2021-22 Bhakti Prem Padma Swetamber Cit (Exemption), Jain Charitable Seva Sansthan, Vs Jaipur 702 C/O Man Bai Murdia Hospital Hiran Magari Sector-11 Pan: Aaatb1780A Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(E) Passed Under Section 12Aa Of The Act On 26.03.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Impugned Order U/S 12Aa(1)(B)Of The Act Dated 26.03.2021 Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. The Ld. Cit(E) Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Rejecting The Registration U/S 12Aa(1)(B) Without Providing Adequate & Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee In Gross Breach Of Law. The Registration U/S 12Aa(1)(B) So Denied Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts Of The Case. Hence The Same Kindly Be Directed To Grant The Registration From The Year When The Application Was Filled.

Section 12A

Exemption) rejected the application of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the same, assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. 4. There was a delay in filing appeal before This Tribunal. Assessee filed a condonation petition alongwith the affidavit of the Trustee. On perusal of the affidavit and petition, we are convinced