← 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

Unico Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 1360/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1360/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2023-24 M/S. Unico Charitable Trust, The Commissioner Of No.4/173, Thulakanathamman Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Koil Street, Chennai. Surapet, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 066. Pan: Aabtu 0458P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Parvatha Varthini, Cma ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. H. Kabila, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Parvatha Varthini, CMAFor Respondent: Ms. H. Kabila, CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

claims. 5. The learned CIT (Exemptions) erred in not invoking the CBDT's powers under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act to condone the delay and consider the application on merits, especially when the genuineness of the Trust's activities was not under dispute. 6. The order ... strike a balance between law and equity. 4. Before us, the Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing Form 10AB before CBDT u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act, dated 17.07.2025. It was submitted that since the condonation petition

Jayanty Mohapatra, Jajpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jajpur

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

ITA 387/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.387/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Jayanty Mohapatra Vs Ito, Jajpur Bada Biruan, Sankhachilla, Jajpur, 755015 Pan No. : Akmpm 2178 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Natabar Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

appeal of the assessee is barred by 127 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR also did not raise any serious ... objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, delay of 127 days in 2 filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing

Pravat Kumar Pathal, Jajpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jajpur

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

ITA 386/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.386/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Pravat Kumar Pathal Vs Ito, Jajpur Cuttack Saree Centre Chorda, Jajpur Road, Jajpur, 755019 Pan No. : Akwpp 9494 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Natbar Panda, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20/03/2025 Passed In Appeal No.Cit(A),Cuttack/11060/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 35 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Delay, Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, Delay Of 35 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Natbar Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

appeal of the assessee is barred by 35 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR also did not raise any serious ... objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, delay of 35 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 2 3. It was submitted by the ld AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing

Rajesh Kumar Agrawal, Sambalpur vs. ACIT, Sambalpur

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

ITA 380/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.380/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Vs Acit, Range-1, Samabalpur C/O: R.K Rice Mill, Larnpark Remed, Sambalpur, 768101 Pan No. : Abmpa 1631 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None(Adjournment Application Filed) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19/08/2024 Passed In Appeal No.Cit(A),Sambalpur/10281/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 242 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Delay, Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, Delay Of 242 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. None For The Assessee. Shri Vijay Singh, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: None(adjournment application filed)For Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

appeal of the assessee is barred by 242 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR also did not raise any serious ... objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, delay of 242 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. None for the assessee. Shri Vijay Singh, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 2 4. We have considered the submission

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 372/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.372/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Orissa State Cooperative Vs Dcit, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar Handicrafts Corporation Limited Industrial Estate, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaaao 0096 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

appeal of the assessee is barred by 208 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld. CIT-DR also did not raise any serious ... objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, delay of 208 days in 2 filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing

Shreeji Ceramic Industries, Morbi vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 266/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. A.L.Saini, Am & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.266/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Shreeji Ceramic Industries, The Principal Commissioner Of Vs. 8/A National Highway, Lalpar Income Tax – 1, Morbi - 363642 Rajkot "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfs8846B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit (Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rajkot – 1 [In Short, “The Ld. Pcit”], Dated 30.03.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows.

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 263o

ITAT, Rajkot in the case of Rajmoti Road Movers, ITA No. 316/Rjt/2023. Assessment Year.2015-16 Shreeji Ceramic 6. In support of the request to condone the delay, Ld. AR of the Assessee has submitted written submission running from 1 to 24 pages, in which several judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court ... this case as full scrutiny. It was covid period and Assessee could not have outcome of the case. To substantiate their request for condonation of delay, Assessee has taken support of three judgements. As mentioned in para 20 of application, Assessee has relied upon judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High

Junaid Suleman Motara, Na vs. Arivs.the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Navsari

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 674/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsaa 3Ittt F./Ita Nos. 567 & 674/Srt/2023 (Ays 2015-16 & 2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Junaid Suleman Motara Assistant Commissioner Of 27, Vohra Wad Telada Vesma, Income-Tax, Osd, Ward-3, Navsari-396 445 Navsasi Ranga Puja Complex, 1* [Pan : Bxupm 1984 R] Floor, Junathana Navsari-396 445 Colt Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Income Tax Office, Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 445 Ardenelf/ Appellant Weet Respondent Prafftdt #1 Sik A /Assessee By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca Weed Bt Ix S /Revenue By Shri Ajay Uke- Sr-Dr | Aare Ct Artg/Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 Squrgun Ct Arrg/Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2025

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 254(1)

appeal ITA No.674//SRT/2023 for AY 2016-17 late by 46 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by affidavit. The relevant part of application for delay is as under: "T would like to submit that I have filed an appeal ... online proceedings. After considering the reasons explained by the Ld.AR in the interest of justice we take a judicious view and, we condone the delay in filing both the appeals and heard on merit. 5. Brief facts of the case the appellant is engaged in the business of quarry, which