← 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

Sudha Dhoot, Kolkata vs. AO Ward 40(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 268/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.268/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year. :2018-2019) Sudha Dhoot, Vs Assessing Officer Ward-40(4), 29B, Rabindra Sarani, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata Room No.10E, Wb-700001 Pan No. : Adwpd 2538 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.10.2023 Passed By The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-12, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2018-2019 2. None Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 55 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection In Condoning The Delay. Accordingly, The Delay Of 55 Days Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. As The Notice Has Been Sent Through Rpad, Email & Also Through The Revenue & The Acknowledgement Of The Notice Having Been Served Through The Revenue By Rpad Is Available. As None Represented On Behalf

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 55 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection in condoning

Sampathu Gowrilaksmi, Pondicherry vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puducherry

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

ITA 1580/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1580/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Late Sampathu Gowrilakshmi, The Income Tax Officer, Rep. By Legal Heir Shri S. Vs. Ward 1, Singaravelu, Pondicherry. No.120 Gowri Silks, Nehru Street, Pondicherry – 605 001. Pan: Aadpg 1998G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Hitesh, Advocate For Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Arun Prasad, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, Advocate for Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.V. Arun Prasad, Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 250

before 06.08.2024. However, the appeal was filed belatedly on 30.05.2025. The legal heir of the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by affidavit stating there in the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated is that the assessee was handling all her income ... delay. On perusal of the same, we find there is sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. At the very outset, we notice that the order passed

Shashwat Verma, London, United Kingdom vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3468/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3468/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2011-12) Shashwat Verma, Flat-34, London House, London Nw8 7Px, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant United Kingdom Pan: Afspv-5520-M बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-52(1), R.No. 2109, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Minto Road, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri Mayank Patawari, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 30/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 20.12.2024, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 88 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Reasons For Delay Stated In Application Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus, Delay Of 88 Days In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 148

Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra) has held that liberal approach should be adopted while 4 dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic ... hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. 7.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others (2002) 3 SCC 195/AIR 2002 SC 1201 has held that the expression

Mohd. Umar, Nuh, Mewat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Faridabad

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3078/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3078/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2011-12) Mohd. Umar, Village Siroli, Tehsil Punhana, Mewat, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Nuh, Palwal, Haryana 121103 Pan: Aabpu-9980-G बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5) ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Cgo Complex, Faridabad, Haryana 121001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 31/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 03.02.2025, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 8 Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Supported By An Affidavit & Medical Records. After Perusal Of Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, But Is For The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Hence, Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing On Merits.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

dated 03.02.2025, for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The appeal is time barred by 8 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit and Medical records. After perusal of same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional