← 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

Pata Trans Himalayan Empowerment Society, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Kullu, Himachal Pradesh

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 805/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 804 & 805/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24 Pata Trans Himalayan Empowerment The Ito, Society, Khangechenapa House Darcha Vs Ward – Kullu, Dangama, Darcha Sumdo, (H.P.). Lahaul & Spiti (Hp). "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajap8705D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 Virtual Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5Section 80G

pointed out that appeal is time barred by 805 days. The ITA Nos.804 & 805/CHD/2025 A.Y.2023-24 3 assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. It has been pleaded in the application that originally assessee had applied for registration u/s 12AA and 80G of the Act on 30.09.2022. These applications ... also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction

Pata Trans Himalayan Empowerment Society, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Kullu, Himachal Pradesh

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 804/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 804 & 805/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24 Pata Trans Himalayan Empowerment The Ito, Society, Khangechenapa House Darcha Vs Ward – Kullu, Dangama, Darcha Sumdo, (H.P.). Lahaul & Spiti (Hp). "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajap8705D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 Virtual Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5Section 80G

pointed out that appeal is time barred by 805 days. The ITA Nos.804 & 805/CHD/2025 A.Y.2023-24 3 assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. It has been pleaded in the application that originally assessee had applied for registration u/s 12AA and 80G of the Act on 30.09.2022. These applications ... also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction

Gurmit Singh S/O Sh. Balvir Singh, Barnala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Barnala

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical

ITA 448/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 448/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gurmit Singh, Ito, बनाम H. No. 599, T Point, Ward 1, Ward No. 17, Barnala Vs. Opp. Ge Cinema, Barnala, Punjab 148101 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Gumps7154D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Aman Patri, Advocate, राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.06.2024 Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2018-19. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Sh. Aman Patri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 246A

appeal before the Tribunal. The Counsel of the Assessee has filed an application alongwith Affidavit on behalf of the Assessee, making prayer for condonation of delay. The affidavit of the Assessee is as under: 448-Chd-2025 Gurmit Singh, Barnala 3 448-Chd-2025 Gurmit Singh, Barnala ... have considered the reasons given in the Application / Affidavit and keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned therein, we are inclined to condone the delay. 4. The ld. DR did not have any objection for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned

Collective Efforts for Voluntary Action, Chamba vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Solan

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical

ITA 118/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 118/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Collective Efforts For The Ito Exemption Voluntary Action, बनाम Ward, Ceva Parisar Chamba, Solan Vs. Udaipur, Khas Chamba 176310 H.P. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aabac2890C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Chauhan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13-10-2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.11.2024 Of Ld. Addl. / Jcit(A), Thane For A.Y. 2017-18. 2 118-Chd-2025- Collective Efforts For Voluntary Action, Chamba

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Chauhan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

Collective Efforts for Voluntary Action, Chamba proving the appellant's entitlement to exemption under Section 12AA, thereby leading to an erroneous demand. 5. Condonation of Delay. The learned CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 1324 days in filing the appeal, despite sufficient and reasonable causes provided, including ... dismissed the appeal in limine. The Ld. Counsel stated that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was a delayed one and for condonation of delay, an application was filed before the Addl. CIT(A) but the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing

Basera Realtors Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 34/CHANDI/2022[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 34/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, बनाम 10, Canal View, Near South Central Circle -1, City, Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana Vs. Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaccb7360D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None ( Adjournment Application ) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.05.2017 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, For A.Y. 2007- 08. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: None ( Adjournment Application )For Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT DR
Section 69

Registry has pointed out a delay of 1649 days in filing of the appeal. The Assessee has filed an application dt. 01.2.2022 for condonation of delay alongwith an 34-Chd-2022 Basera Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Ludhiana 3 Affidavit which is reproduced as under:- 34-Chd-2022 Basera Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Ludhiana ... Basera Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Ludhiana 5 4. From the application / Affidavit for condonation of delay, it is seen that the order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) in 2017 and the appeal was filed in 2022. So approximately the appeal is delayed by 1649 days. In the application for condonation

DCIT, Cen Cir 2(2), Chennai vs. Anbezhil Suryaraj Kumar, Chennai

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

ITA 1676/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1676/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Anbezhil Suryaraj Kumar, Flat No. G.2, Aarudhira Flats, 4Th Street, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan:Aetpa4862K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 9 Days. The Dcit Central Circle 2(2), 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-

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 153ASection 54

find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 9 days. The DCIT Central Circle 2(2), 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