← 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

DCIT, CC-2, Chandigarh vs. M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company, Mohali

ITA 15/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 729/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 15/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-Central Circle 2 M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company बनाम/ Vs. Cr Building, Sector 17 1, Mubarikpur To Ramgarh Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vpo Mubarikpur, Mohali (Punjab) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abafm-6580-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. Co. No.39/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. No. 729/Chandi/2022) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. Co. No.40/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. No. 15/Chandi/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company Acit-Central Circle 2 बनाम/ Sco 506, Chirag Homes-2 Cr Building, Sector 17 Near Arista Place, Sector 123 Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Sunny Enclave, Mohali (Punjab)-140301 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abafm-6580-C (Cross Objector) (Respondent) : Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr Assessee By : Sh. Harry Rikhy (Advocate)-Ld. Ar

For Appellant: Sh. Harry Rikhy (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153A

this regard, have been placed on record. The Ld. AR also filed an affidavit supporting the same. The Ld. CIT-DR opposed condonation of delay. However, after considering the averments made in the affidavit and keeping in mind the guiding principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court ... case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987; (2) TMI 61 SC), we condone the delay in assessee’s cross-objections and proceed for disposal of the appeals & cross-objections on merits. 3. First, we take up revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross- objections

ACIT, CC-2, Chandigarh vs. M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company, Mohali

ITA 729/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 729/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 15/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-Central Circle 2 M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company बनाम/ Vs. Cr Building, Sector 17 1, Mubarikpur To Ramgarh Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vpo Mubarikpur, Mohali (Punjab) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abafm-6580-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. Co. No.39/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. No. 729/Chandi/2022) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. Co. No.40/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. No. 15/Chandi/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company Acit-Central Circle 2 बनाम/ Sco 506, Chirag Homes-2 Cr Building, Sector 17 Near Arista Place, Sector 123 Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Sunny Enclave, Mohali (Punjab)-140301 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abafm-6580-C (Cross Objector) (Respondent) : Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr Assessee By : Sh. Harry Rikhy (Advocate)-Ld. Ar

For Appellant: Sh. Harry Rikhy (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153A

this regard, have been placed on record. The Ld. AR also filed an affidavit supporting the same. The Ld. CIT-DR opposed condonation of delay. However, after considering the averments made in the affidavit and keeping in mind the guiding principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court ... case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987; (2) TMI 61 SC), we condone the delay in assessee’s cross-objections and proceed for disposal of the appeals & cross-objections on merits. 3. First, we take up revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross- objections

Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., (International Taxation), Circle-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1220/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1220/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Cathay Pacific Airways Limited,…………….…Appellant Room No. 14, 3Rd Floor, New Integrated Cargo Terminal, Nscbi Airport, Kolkata-700052 [Pan:Aabcc5644E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent (International Taxation), Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Em Bye-Pass, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Sm. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 14, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 3

Tribunal. However, Shri Rakesh Prabhacar Raicar, Regional General Manager of Cathay Pacific Airways Limited filed an affidavit before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 95 days mentioning that the assessee was not aware of any notices of hearing and the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals ... appeal, due to that there was a delay of 95 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within

Fast-N-Perfect Commercial Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. I.T.O. Ward-5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1215/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1215/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Fast-N-Perfect Commercial Pvt. Limited,….…Appellant 23A, N.S. Road, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 10, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal [Pan:Aaacf3691B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-5(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 6Th Floor, Room No. 27, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Vijay Kumar Singhal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 14, 2025 O R D E R

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68

appeal before the ITAT as all the Directors DIN were disqualified and inactive due to frozen of Bank Account. He pleaded to condone the delay of 2590 days and to admit the appeal. 5. On the other hand, it was the submission of the ld. Departmental Representative that there ... Counsel about filing of the appeal. Thus, it indicates the gross negligence on the part of assessee. There is no sufficient cause to condone huge delay of 2590 days. Therefore, he pleaded to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. 4 Fast-N-Perfect Commercial Pvt. Limited 6. We have

JCIT (in-Situ), Kolkata vs. Warren Tea Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1839/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1839/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020) Jcit(In-Situ), Kolkata, Vs Warren Tea Limited, 4B Suvira House, Hungerford Street, Shakespeare Sarani, West Bengal-700017 Pan No. :Aaacw 2894 H (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 22.11.2023, Passed By The Id. Addl./Jcit(A)-9, Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Barred By 219 Days. No Condonation Petition Has Been Filed By The Revenue. In Absence Of Any Petition With Regard To Condonation Of Delay By The Revenue, We Are Unable To Proceed To Admit The Appeal Of The Revenue. Accordingly, We Dismiss The Appeal Of The Revenue On Account Of Delay. 3. In The Result, Appeal Of The Revenue Is Dismissed. Order Dictated & Pronounced In The Open Court On 14/10/2025. (Rakesh Mishra) (George Mathan) लेखा सदस्य/न्यधनयक सदस्य /कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 14/10/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR

revenue is barred by 219 days. No condonation petition has been filed by the revenue. In absence of any petition with regard to condonation of delay by the revenue, we are unable to proceed to admit the appeal of the revenue. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue

Sant Trikam Shaheb Vadi Education and Cheritable Trust, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Office, Exemption, WD-2, Rajkot

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

ITA 956/RJT/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 956/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: Na Sant Trikam Shaheb Vadi Education & Vs. Ito Exemption, Charitable Trust Wd-2, Income Tax Office, New Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course At Vill-Ranuja, Tal-Kalavad (Shitla), Dist- Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 Jamnagar-361160 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawts5719E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Viral Vajani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Viral Vajani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT.DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 244 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. Learned Counsel for the assessee, has explained the delay stating that their trust had got provisional registration on 27/05/2021 and later on, the assessee ... assessee could not file appeal to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within 2 months’ time. Based on the contention stated in the petition for condonation of delay, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that assessee had explained sufficient cause, therefore delay should be condoned. 5. On the other hand