← 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

Gretta Joffy, Chittattukara vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Guruvayoor

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

ITA 734/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gretta Joffy .......... Appellant Vadukkoot Kooriyal House, Elavally Chittattukara, Thrissur 680511 [Pan: Avwpg3387P] Vs. Ito, Ward -1 & Tps, Guruvayoor .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Preetha Shenoy, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29.12.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Carrying On The Business Of Running Petrol Pump Under The Name & Style Of “Koorial Fuels”. No Regular Return Of Income For Ay 2017- 18 Was Filed By The Appellant. Therefore, The Ao Issued Notice U/S. 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) On 15.01.2018 Calling Upon The Appellant To File The Return Of Income. In Response To The Notice U/S. 142(1), The Appellant Filed Return Of Income Disclosing

For Appellant: Shri Preetha Shenoy, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144

outset, I find that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 520 days. The appellant had filed application for condonation of delay stating that the delay had occurred on account of wrong advice of the Tax Consultant and placed reliance on the decision ... taxmann.com 389. Thus he prayed that the delay may be condoned. 6. I have carefully perused the averments made in the petition seeking condonation of delay. The only explanation offered by the 3 Gretta Joffy appellant for the delay in filing the appeal is that the delay had occurred

Tirupati Timbers & Packaging P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1428/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1428/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Tirupati Timbers & Packaging P. Limited,…Appellant Room No. 563, Marshall House, 33/1, N.S. Road, Dalhousie, G.P.O., Kolkata-700001, W.B. [Pan:Aabct2720Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 8Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Girdhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 20, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

However, Shri Niraj Gupta, on behalf of the assessee-Company filed an affidavit dated 28th August, 2025 before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 92 days mentioning that due to non-consideration of the submission made against the order u/s. 250 of the Act dated 02.01.2025 passed ... appeal, due to that there was a delay of 92 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay in the appeal. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing