← All Phrases

“condonation of delay”

AppealsSection 249Section 24912,312 judgments

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

Leading authorities on condonation of delay

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.

Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
2025 INSC 382 · 2025 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

Non-deliberate procedural delays caused by circumstances beyond control must be condoned in the interest of substantial justice, even if the delay is significant, such as over 1500 days.

Vedabhai v. Santaram
253 ITR 798 · 2002 · Supreme Court
262
citing judgments

When substantial justice and technical considerations are in conflict, substantial justice should be prioritized. Condoning delay requires a cautious approach without malafide or dilatory tactics, and 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.

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.

Judgments citing condonation of delay

M/S. Buhari Hotels and Motels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Ward-1(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2413/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2413/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Buhari Hotels & Motels Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 6, Income Tax, Gandhi Irwin Road, Corporate Ward 1(3), Egmore 600 008. Chennai. [Pan:Aaecb4681M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Adjournment Petition. Thus, The Assessee Called Absent & Set Exparte.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. CIT (virtual)

I.T.A. No.2413/Chny/25 3. Further, we find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 1 day, but, however, no petition for condonation of delay in support of an affidavit is filed to condone the delay. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable and dismissed the same

Kali Durai, Kaiveli vs. ITO, Villupuram

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

ITA 2357/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2357/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Kali Durai, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ravi Illam, No. 3, Mgr Street, Ward I, Villupuram. Thanthai Periyar Nagar, Kaiveli, Chennai 600 042. [Pan:Ccwpd7680C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Sonali Khatod, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 87 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Ms. Sonali Khatod, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. CIT (Virtual)
Section 144

year 2020-21. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 87 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, 2 I.T.A. No.2357/Chny/25 we find the reasons stated ... treated as other income as per para 4.6(ii) of the assessment order. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay for the reason that the assessee failed to justify the delay in filing the appeal. 5. The ld. AR Ms. Sonali Khatod, C.A. submits

St. Francis Xavier Church, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Thane

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

ITA 5883/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2024-25 St. Francis Xavier Church Trust, Income Tax Officer, Plot 379/B, Behind Orion Mall Exemption Ward, Thane & S.T. Depot, Vs. Quershi Mansion, Panvel-410206. Gokhale Road, Pan : Aaets4913N Naupada, Thane-400602. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Smt. B. Brahma Vidya Date Of Hearing : 25-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-Agra, Dated 29-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2024-25, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Confirming The Denial Of Exemption/Deductions Under Section 11 Of The Act Resorted To By The Centralized Processing Centre [Cpc), Income Tax Department, Bengaluru (The Learned Assessing Officer) While Processing The Return Of Income Under Section 143(1) Of The Act On The Grounds That The Audit Report In Form 10-Bb Was Filed Belatedly, Though With The Return Of Income Which Was Filed Within The Extended Time Limit Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Smt. B. Brahma Vidya
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

delayed by 29 days. Further reference was drawn to the findings of the Addl/JCIT(A), wherein he has held that in absence of condonation of delay by the competent authority and in absence of any evidence of such delay being condoned, the filing of Form-10BB renders the claim ... time lines have been extended by the CBDT given the circumstances prevailing at the relevant point in time. Further, the matter relating to condonation of delay in filing such audit reports has been dealt by the CBDT from time to time and necessary instructions have been issued to the competent

Vipulbhai Vitthalbhai Kakadia, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(1)(5), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.543/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 (Hybrid Hearing) Vipulbhai Vitthalbhai Kakadia बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, 301, B/H Golden Point, Anmol Vs. Ward-3(1)(5), Complex Nana Varachha, Surat - 395001 Surat-395 006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aowpk 3567 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Respondent By Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25/09/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

hearing of appeal.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is late by 340 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee submitted that during the filing of appeal before CIT(A), his consultant had clearly mentioned ... decided on merit. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. He, however, stated that the Bench may decide the preliminary issue as it thinks fit. 5. We have heard both parties on this preliminary issue