← 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

Faisal Badruddin Shitware, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Tax Ward)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4081/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrifaisal Badruddin Ao Ward 4(2)(1), Kautilya Shitware Bhavan, Bandra Kurla 307, 1A, Delux Nagar Vs. Complex, Mumbai 400051 Building, Jeevan Baug, Post Room No. 209, 2Nd Floor, Office Road, Mumbra, Thane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 400612 Mumbai 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Bvops1660L (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Nishit Gandhi /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ao Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai Dated 17.12.2024 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar SR. DR
Section 115BSection 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 151ASection 153Section 5Section 69

noted that the appeal has been filed after a delay of 102 days. In this regard, the assesses has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay on the ground that due to disability caused by motor neuron disease, he could not sign the documents for filling of appeal. In support ... submissions, a certificate from the doctor has also been filed considering the serious health issues being faced by the assesses, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal. Ground No. 1.2 (iii) : On Validity of Reassessment. 6. The assessee has submitted that the entire reassessment

Institute of Medical Technology, Newkalebar Road, Gopalpur, Puri vs. Exemption Ward, Bbn, ITO, Bhubaneswar. Exemption

In the result both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 359/CTK/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.353/Ctk/2025 आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.359/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020) Institute Of Medical Technology Vs Ito, Exemption Ward, Sai Vihar New Nabakalebar Bhubaneswar Road, Baliguali , Puri, 752002 Pan No. : Aaaai 0815 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 12A

No.353/CTK/2025 for A.Y.2018-2019 is barred by 406 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. with the appeal filed

Institute of Medical Technology, Newnabakalebar Road, Gopalpur, Puri vs. Exemption Ward, Bbn, ITO, Bhubaneswar, Exemption

In the result both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 353/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.353/Ctk/2025 आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.359/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020) Institute Of Medical Technology Vs Ito, Exemption Ward, Sai Vihar New Nabakalebar Bhubaneswar Road, Baliguali , Puri, 752002 Pan No. : Aaaai 0815 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 12A

No.353/CTK/2025 for A.Y.2018-2019 is barred by 406 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. with the appeal filed