← 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

Soofi Tyre Palace, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Udhampur

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 152/ASR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.149/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.150/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.151/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.152/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Soofi Tyre Palace Ito बनाम/ Vs. (Partner Sajad Ahmad Sofi) Ward Udhampur Anantnag, J&K 192 101 Jammu & Kashmir. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adlfs-7057-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Mohd Iqbal Untoo (Ca) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Quantum Appeal As Well As Penalty Appeals By Assessee Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of First Appellate Authority. Ita

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd Iqbal Untoo (CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

total bank credits for want of any explanation from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment for want of condonation of delay of 78 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has made a prayer for disposal of appeal on merits ... considered opinion that the delay of 78 days could have been condoned by Ld. CIT(A). Nevertheless, we condone the delay and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith

Soofi Tyre Palace, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Udhampur

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 150/ASR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.149/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.150/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.151/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.152/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Soofi Tyre Palace Ito बनाम/ Vs. (Partner Sajad Ahmad Sofi) Ward Udhampur Anantnag, J&K 192 101 Jammu & Kashmir. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adlfs-7057-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Mohd Iqbal Untoo (Ca) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Quantum Appeal As Well As Penalty Appeals By Assessee Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of First Appellate Authority. Ita

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd Iqbal Untoo (CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

total bank credits for want of any explanation from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment for want of condonation of delay of 78 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has made a prayer for disposal of appeal on merits ... considered opinion that the delay of 78 days could have been condoned by Ld. CIT(A). Nevertheless, we condone the delay and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith

Soofi Tyre Palace, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Udhampur

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 149/ASR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.149/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.150/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.151/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.152/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Soofi Tyre Palace Ito बनाम/ Vs. (Partner Sajad Ahmad Sofi) Ward Udhampur Anantnag, J&K 192 101 Jammu & Kashmir. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adlfs-7057-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Mohd Iqbal Untoo (Ca) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Quantum Appeal As Well As Penalty Appeals By Assessee Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of First Appellate Authority. Ita

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd Iqbal Untoo (CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

total bank credits for want of any explanation from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment for want of condonation of delay of 78 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has made a prayer for disposal of appeal on merits ... considered opinion that the delay of 78 days could have been condoned by Ld. CIT(A). Nevertheless, we condone the delay and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith