← 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

Sai Sri Anusha Valluru, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

ITA 468/VIZ/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.468/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year:2009-10) Sai Sri Anusha Valluru 62-8, Flat No. 201 Kesava Residency Netaji Street, Patamata Vijayawada [Pan: Ahopv5451H] Vs. Dcit – Circle-2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex M.G.Road, Vijayawada-520002 Andhra Pradesh आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.469/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year:2009-10) Jagan Mohan Rao Valluru Vs. Dcit – Circle-2(1) 63-1-3, Ramalayam Street Patamatalanka Vijayawada – 520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Ahopv4864A] C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex M.G.Road, Vijayawada-520002 Andhra Pradesh करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Sr.Dr : 16.02.2026 : 27.02.2026 Per Ravish Sood, Jm: आदेश /Order

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री रवीश सूद, न्यायिक

Vidyut Employees Co-Operative Housing Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1878/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1878/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Vidyut Employees Co- The Dcit, Operative Housing Vs. Circle-6(1), Society, Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pin – 500 034. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aaaav5182H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Y V Bhanu Narayan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Suresh Babu Kn, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri Y V Bhanu Narayan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Babu KN, Sr. AR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

year 2018-2019. 2. There is a delay of 8 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee society filed a petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit of the Secretary of the assessee 2 ITA.No.1878/Hyd./2025 society. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that ... days in filing the present appeal be condoned. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has not seriously objected to the condonation of delay of 8 days in filing the present appeal. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee as well

Tool Tech Enteprises Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1, Coimbaotore

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

ITA 3866/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3866/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tool Tech Enterprises Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 374, A P Tower, Dr. Rajendra Corporate Ward 1, Prasad Road, 100 Feet Road, Coimbatore. Gandhipuram, Coimbatore 641 012. [Pan: Aadct9931H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Padmanabhan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.01.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 963 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Support Of Notarized Affidavit. In The Petition, The Assessee Has Submitted As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 144Section 253

assessment year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 963 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay in support of notarized affidavit. In the petition, the assessee has submitted as under: 2 I.T.A. No.3866/Chny/25 I, PALANISAMY KAMAL director of TOOL TECH ... urged at the time of the hearing of this petition prays that the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay 4 I.T.A. No.3866/Chny/25 of 978 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal filed on 18.12.2025. 19. That due to the above mentioned