← 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

Shmashan Sewa Samiti, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Amritsar

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 594/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 594/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shmashan Sewa Samiti Ito - Ward 1(1) बनाम/ Vs. Outside Chatiwind Gate, New Cr Building Amritsar-143001 Amritsar. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aasas-5377-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Rohit Kapoor Advocate A/W Shri V.S. Aggarwal (Itp) –Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 29-08-2024 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) Dated 12-03-2020. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 5 Days In The Appeal Which Stands Condoned. 2. It Emerges That The Assessee Is A Charitable Society. The Cpc Considered Entire Gross Receipts As The Income Of The Assessee Denying Deduction Claimed By The Assessee U/S 10(23C)(V). The Said

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor Advocate a/w ShriFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

clause in the drop down list in ITR-7. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 180 days against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. Considering the fact that the assessee is a charitable trust

Rotary Shaishnik Tabibi Seva Sahayak Mandal, Valsad vs. CIT(Exmeption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 396/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 396/Srt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (Na) (Hybrid Hearing) Rotary Shaishnik Tabibi Seav Vs. Cit(Exemption) Sahayak Mandal Room No. 609, Floor No. 6, Ayakar Vai – Bhilad, At Post Sarigam Bhavan (Vejalpur), Prahalad Nagar, Road, Ahmedabad - 380015 Valsad – 396170 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahts6053N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Ld.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi kant Gupta, Ld.CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 2(15)

outset, that the appeal filed late by 562 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The relevant part of the application for delay is as under; “01. that I am president of ROTARY SHAISHNIK AND TABIBI SEVA SAHAYAK MANDAL ... deliberate nor due to negligence on the part of the appellant. In the interest of justice, we take a judicious view and we condoned the delay in filing the appeal by 562 days, and the appeal heard on merit. 9. We hold that the orders dated 18.09.2023 passed

Santanu Roy, ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata vs. Ems Polyset Private Limited, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2194/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.2193&2194/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2112-13 Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata.…………………….…………….……....Appellant Vs. Ems Polyset Pvt. Ltd………………………………………….…..... Respondent Gobinda Niwas, Jyangra, Baguihati, Kolkata - 700059. [Pan: Aaace5551F] Appearances By: Shri Susanta Saha, Acit- Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrato Rai, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 18, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 06.08.2024 Passed By The Cit(Appeals) Addl/Jcit(A), Madurai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. First, We Take Up Ita No.2193/Kol/2024 For Narration Of Facts. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 27 Days In Filing Both The Present Appeals. The Revenue Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause. We

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250

outset, the Registry has informed that there are delays of 27 days in filing both the present appeals. The revenue filed applications for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the applications, we find reasonable cause. We, I.T.A. Nos.2193&2194/Kol/2024 EMS Polyset Pvt. Ltd therefore, condone

ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata vs. Ems Polyset Private Limited, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2193/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.2193&2194/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2112-13 Ito, Ward-10(2), Kolkata.…………………….…………….……....Appellant Vs. Ems Polyset Pvt. Ltd………………………………………….…..... Respondent Gobinda Niwas, Jyangra, Baguihati, Kolkata - 700059. [Pan: Aaace5551F] Appearances By: Shri Susanta Saha, Acit- Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrato Rai, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 18, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against Two Separate Orders Both Dated 06.08.2024 Passed By The Cit(Appeals) Addl/Jcit(A), Madurai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. First, We Take Up Ita No.2193/Kol/2024 For Narration Of Facts. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Are Delays Of 27 Days In Filing Both The Present Appeals. The Revenue Filed Applications For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause. We

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250

outset, the Registry has informed that there are delays of 27 days in filing both the present appeals. The revenue filed applications for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the applications, we find reasonable cause. We, I.T.A. Nos.2193&2194/Kol/2024 EMS Polyset Pvt. Ltd therefore, condone