← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata vs. Starmilk Products Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1107/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishradcit, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata Vs Starmilk Products Private Ltd 8, Saha Court, 1St Floor, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013 Pan No. :Aavcs 8888 C (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengputa, Cit-Dr निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 18.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri Amit Agarwal, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. An Adjournment Application Has Been Filed By Shri Amit Agarwal, Ld. Ar On Behalf Of The Assessee Stating Therein The Reasons Which Are Not Plausible And, Therefore, We Reject The Adjournment Application Of The Ld. Ar & Proceed To Dispose Off The Appeal Of The Revenue. 4. The Revenue Has Filed This Appeal On 17.05.2024 With A Delay Of 57 Days. The Appeal Has Been Posted On Multiple Occasions. Notices Have Been Issued Through Rpad & Through Email Also. Ld. Ar Has Also Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee On 13.05.2025 & On Today I.E. On 2

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengputa, CIT-DR

revenue has filed condonation petition stating therein as under :- 5. A perusal of the above petition of the revenue filed for condonation of delay, shows that the revenue has not stated any reasons for 3 ITANo.1107/Kol/2024 condonation of delay. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed on account

S. Panneerselvam, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncc-10(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1688/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1688/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 S. Panneerselvam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 11, Vivek Nagar, Kolathur, Non Corporate Circle 10(3), Chennai 600 099. Chennai. [Pan: Ainpp3051B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 43 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons In Support Of An Affidavit. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, I Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 292BSection 69ASection 69C

Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. This appeal is filed with a delay of 43 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay stating the reasons in support of an affidavit. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, I find the reasons

The Property Association of Baptist Churches Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-3, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2356/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2355 & 2356/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Property Association Of Baptist Vs. The Income Tax Officer Churches Pvt. Ltd., 903, Tower E2, (Exemption) Ward 3, Ekanta North Town, Stephension Road, Chennai. Perambur, Chennai 600 012. [Pan:Aabct2815J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Akash, Advocate & Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 14.03.2024 & 28.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri G. Akash, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT (Virtual)
Section 11Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 119 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, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which ... find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 134 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, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented

The Property Association of Baptist Churches Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-3, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2355/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2355 & 2356/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Property Association Of Baptist Vs. The Income Tax Officer Churches Pvt. Ltd., 903, Tower E2, (Exemption) Ward 3, Ekanta North Town, Stephension Road, Chennai. Perambur, Chennai 600 012. [Pan:Aabct2815J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Akash, Advocate & Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 14.03.2024 & 28.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri G. Akash, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT (Virtual)
Section 11Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 119 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, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which ... find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 134 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, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented

Srinivasa Rao Saripudi, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 200/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.200/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Srinivasa Rao Saripudi Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada Ward-2 (4) Pan:Apvps1663K Vijayawada (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17/04/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee When This Appeal Was Called For Hearing Despite Various Notices Issued To The Assessee & Adjournment Of Hearing Was Granted On The Request Of The Assessee, Vide Order Dated 21/07/2025. Even After Taking Adjournment Of Hearing On 21/07/2025, The Assessee Did Not Bother To Appear Before The Tribunal On The Subsequent Dates. Accordingly, The Bench Proposes To Hear & Dispose Of This Matter, Ex-Parte.

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Saripudi 3. There is a delay of 276 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has neither filed any application for condonation of delay, nor explained the cause of such delay of 276 days in filing the present appeal. The learned DR has vehemently contended that the appeal