← 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

ITO, Ward-2(1), Begusarai vs. Manish Kumar Motani, Khagaria, Bihar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 442/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajjpm4263D Co No. 02/Pat/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 442/Pat/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi, S.K. Duta, Ars Revenue By : Shri A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K. RastogiFor Respondent: Shri A.H. Chowdhary, DR
Section 133ASection 40A(3)

hierarchy , which took time and accordingly, the delay may be condoned. The ld. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. At the outset, we note ... counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the cross objection. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons

Hari Yamuna Sehyog Samiti, Himachal Pradesh vs. ITO Nahan, Himachal Pradesh

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1489/CHANDI/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1471/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2025-26 (Us/ 12Aa ) Hari Yamuna Sehyog Samiti, The Ito, बनाम Vikas Walia Building, Nahan Ward No. 7, Main Market, Vs. Paonta Sahib, Solan, Hp 173025 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aacah3504R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1489/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2025-26 (Us/ 80G ) Hari Yamuna Sehyog Samiti, The Ito, बनाम Vikas Walia Building, Nahan Ward No. 7, Main Market, Vs. Paonta Sahib, Solan, Hp 173025 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aacah3504R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1670/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2024-25 U/S 80G Hari Yamuna Sehyog Samiti, The Ito, बनाम Vikas Walia Building, Nahan Ward No. 7, Main Market, Vs. Paonta Sahib, Solan, Hp 173025 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aacah3504R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 80G

Counsel of the Assessee has filed an application along with Affidavit on behalf of the Assessee, making prayer for condonation of delay. The affidavit of the Assessee is reproduced as under: - ITAs 1471-1489-1670-Chd-2025 3 ITAs 1471-1489-1670-Chd-2025 4 ITAs ... considered the detailed reasons given in the Application / Affidavit and keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned therein, we are inclined to condone the delay. 6. The ld. DR did not have any objection for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the appeal in ITA No.1670/Chd/2025

Hari Yamuna Sehyog Samiti, Himachal Pradesh vs. ITO Nahan, Himachal Pradesh

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1471/CHANDI/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1471/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2025-26 (Us/ 12Aa ) Hari Yamuna Sehyog Samiti, The Ito, बनाम Vikas Walia Building, Nahan Ward No. 7, Main Market, Vs. Paonta Sahib, Solan, Hp 173025 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aacah3504R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1489/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2025-26 (Us/ 80G ) Hari Yamuna Sehyog Samiti, The Ito, बनाम Vikas Walia Building, Nahan Ward No. 7, Main Market, Vs. Paonta Sahib, Solan, Hp 173025 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aacah3504R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1670/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2024-25 U/S 80G Hari Yamuna Sehyog Samiti, The Ito, बनाम Vikas Walia Building, Nahan Ward No. 7, Main Market, Vs. Paonta Sahib, Solan, Hp 173025 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aacah3504R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 80G

Counsel of the Assessee has filed an application along with Affidavit on behalf of the Assessee, making prayer for condonation of delay. The affidavit of the Assessee is reproduced as under: - ITAs 1471-1489-1670-Chd-2025 3 ITAs 1471-1489-1670-Chd-2025 4 ITAs ... considered the detailed reasons given in the Application / Affidavit and keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned therein, we are inclined to condone the delay. 6. The ld. DR did not have any objection for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the appeal in ITA No.1670/Chd/2025

Mahadev Infracon, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1427/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1427/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mahadev Infracon The Dy.Cit बनाम/ B-121, Jivanpark Society Circle-3(1)(1) V/S. Nr. Samrat Nagar Ambawadi Isanpur, Ghodasar Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ahmedabad – 380 050 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaxfm 8708 L (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Popat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 250

from the AO.” 3. There is a delay of 256 days in preferring the present appeal before this tribunal. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed explaining the reasons for delay. The contents of which for the shake of ready reference are reproduced as under: “ Prayer ... condonation of delay of over eight months in filing of Appeal 1. Vide this application, forming part of the appeal memo in prescribed Form No. 36, the Appellant is praying for condonation of the delay in filing the underlying appeal, it is placed on record that there is a technical

Parul Tulsidas Mistry, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

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

ITA 1280/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1280/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Parul Tulsidas Mistry The Ito बनाम/ 21, Paradise Complex Ward-1(2)(4) V/S. Sayajigunj Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara – 390 005 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaspm 5799 G (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/09/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Parul Tulsidas Mistry Vs. Ito Asst.Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

appeal.” 3. There is a delay of 551 days in preferring the present appeal before this tribunal. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed explaining the reasons for delay. The contents of which for the shake of ready reference are reproduced as under: “ Affidavit 1, undersigned, Parul ... assessee be given an opportunity of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A), however subject to payment of reasonable costs. We accordingly, condone the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file