← 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

New Life Grace Ministries Trust, Sindhdurg vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 889/PUN/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील स ./ Ita No.889/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2024-2025 New Life Grace Ministries Cit (Exemption), Pune Trust, Humarmala, Anav, Vs. Kudal, Sindhdurg- 416510 Maharashtra Pan-Aabtn4941L अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: None Department By: Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 25-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 07-10-2025 आदीश/Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Exemption), Pune Passed U/S 12Ab/(I)(B)(Ii) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.09.2024. 2. When The Case Called For None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee However Written Submissions Alongwith The Application For Condonation Of Delay Stands Duly Submitted.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

dated 10.09.2024. 2. When the case called for none appeared on behalf of the assessee however written submissions alongwith the application for condonation of delay stands duly submitted. 3. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 121 days. In the affidavit for condonation of delay filed ... statutory time limit. After hearing the other side and also taking note of the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee for condonation of delay, we find that sufficient cause prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in prescribed time limit. We therefore in the light of the judgement