← 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

Atam Parkash, Patiala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Patiala.

ITA 1107/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1104 To 1107/Chd/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Atam Parkash, The Ito, बनाम 248,Street No. 5, Ward 4, Tripuri Town, Patiala Vs. Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaupp3504C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Dev Ahuja, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal, Cit Dr & Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Respective Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Sh. Dev Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR and Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

happened on 17.9.2020. 3. The Ld. AR had further submitted that in the identical facts, the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2011-12 had condoned the delay and earlier remanded the matter to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication the issues. 4. Per contra ... relied on the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that there was no ground of condonation of delay. 1104 to 1106-Chd-2024 Atma Parkash, Patiala 3 5. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present

Atam Parkash, Patiala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Patiala

ITA 1106/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1104 To 1107/Chd/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Atam Parkash, The Ito, बनाम 248,Street No. 5, Ward 4, Tripuri Town, Patiala Vs. Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaupp3504C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Dev Ahuja, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal, Cit Dr & Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Respective Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Sh. Dev Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR and Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

happened on 17.9.2020. 3. The Ld. AR had further submitted that in the identical facts, the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2011-12 had condoned the delay and earlier remanded the matter to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication the issues. 4. Per contra ... relied on the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that there was no ground of condonation of delay. 1104 to 1106-Chd-2024 Atma Parkash, Patiala 3 5. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present

Atam Parkash, Patiala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Patiala

ITA 1105/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1104 To 1107/Chd/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Atam Parkash, The Ito, बनाम 248,Street No. 5, Ward 4, Tripuri Town, Patiala Vs. Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaupp3504C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Dev Ahuja, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal, Cit Dr & Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Respective Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Sh. Dev Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR and Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

happened on 17.9.2020. 3. The Ld. AR had further submitted that in the identical facts, the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2011-12 had condoned the delay and earlier remanded the matter to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication the issues. 4. Per contra ... relied on the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that there was no ground of condonation of delay. 1104 to 1106-Chd-2024 Atma Parkash, Patiala 3 5. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present

Atam Parkash, Patiala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Patiala

ITA 1104/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1104 To 1107/Chd/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Atam Parkash, The Ito, बनाम 248,Street No. 5, Ward 4, Tripuri Town, Patiala Vs. Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaupp3504C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Dev Ahuja, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal, Cit Dr & Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Respective Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Sh. Dev Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR and Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

happened on 17.9.2020. 3. The Ld. AR had further submitted that in the identical facts, the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2011-12 had condoned the delay and earlier remanded the matter to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication the issues. 4. Per contra ... relied on the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that there was no ground of condonation of delay. 1104 to 1106-Chd-2024 Atma Parkash, Patiala 3 5. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present

Rural Development Foundation, Anand vs. CPC, Bengaluru Juris. AO- the ITO, Ward-Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 927/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.927/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Rural Development Cpc, Bengaluru बनाम/ Foundation Juris.Ao – The Ito Ward- V/S. Aitc, 2Nd Floor Exemption Narayan Complex Vadodara – 390 007 Nr.Shubh Laxmi Shopping Centre Station Road Anand – 388 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabtr 1090 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Arti N. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: 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 21/02/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-2020. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Rural Development Foundation Vs. Cpc, Bengaluru Juris Ao The Ito, Ward-Exemption Asst. Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Arti N. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Ward-Exemption Asst. Year : 2019-20 scope of that provision is confined to mistakes apparent from record, and not to condonation of delay or relaxation of statutory conditions. The appellate authority further noted that the Act provides a specific remedy under section 119(2)(b) empowering the Central Board

Vidya Vikas Pratishtan, Solapur vs. DCIT, Exemption Circle, Pune

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

ITA 902/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Vidya Vikas Pratishtan, Vs. Assessment Unit, 72/2B, Pratap Nagar, Income Tax Department. Soregaon, Solapur- 413004. Pan : Aaatv8537F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing ... condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 2 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Chennai vs. Casa Grande Homes Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1709/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1709/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Casa Grande Homes Private Limited, New No. 111, Old No. 59, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041. Chennai. [Pan:Aagcc1182Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Reddi Prakash, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 18, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 44 Days. The Dcit Central Circle 1(3)(I/C), Chennai Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Appellant-Revenue

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCITFor Respondent: Shri G. Reddi Prakash, CA
Section 145(2)

that this appeal is filed with a delay of 44 days. The DCIT Central Circle 1(3)(I/c), Chennai filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the Appellant-Revenue

Ravi Vijayalakshmi, Athipattu vs. ITO, Nc2-6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2518/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2518/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ravi Vijayalakshmi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 211/A 211A, Rs Road, Reddipalayam, Non Corporate Ward 6(1), Athipattu 600 120, Tamil Nadu. Chennai. [Pan:Akbpv5530B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 180 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: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 144

year 2016-17. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 180 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.2518/Chny/24 we find the reasons stated ... exparte order of the ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee by rejecting the prayer of the assessee to condone the delay in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. At the outset, we note that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 r.w.s