← 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

Shri Abhishek Soin, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 322/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

Registry has pointed out that both the appeals are time barred by 41 days. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay alongwith his affidavit. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been pleaded that business run by the appellant came under financial crunch and insolvency proceedings ... ITAT vide its order dated ITA No.321 & 322/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 3 29.04.2025. Accordingly, following the same set of facts, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeals on merit. 4. As the facts, issues and circumstances in both the appeals are identical, therefore, we take

Shri Abhishek Soin, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 321/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

Registry has pointed out that both the appeals are time barred by 41 days. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay alongwith his affidavit. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been pleaded that business run by the appellant came under financial crunch and insolvency proceedings ... ITAT vide its order dated ITA No.321 & 322/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 3 29.04.2025. Accordingly, following the same set of facts, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeals on merit. 4. As the facts, issues and circumstances in both the appeals are identical, therefore, we take

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Vadodara vs. Diamond Power Infrastructure Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 861/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.861/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 The Dcit Diamond Power Infrastructure बनाम/ Central Circle-3 Ltd. V/S. Vadodara – 390 007 5/9-10, Essen House Bidc Gorwa Vadodara – 390 016 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aaacd 8043 K (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 30(6)

07/01/2025 passed for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. 2. There is a delay of 23 days in filing the appeal. An application for condonation of delay has been filed by the Department. Dy.CIT, CC-3 vs. Diamond Power Infrastructure Ltd. Asst. Year : 2019-20 3. The Ld.Sr.Counsel of the assessee ... pleaded no objection to the condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 4. The Revenue, in this appeal, is aggrieved by the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in dismissing the application passed u/s.154 of the Act, for recalling the order No.CIT(A)/Ahdmedabad-12/10674/2018-19

Parvinbanu Mayudin Kazi, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (Previously Ward-5), Anand

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 595/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Parvinbanu Mayudin Kazi Ito, Ward-1 50/51, Sabnam Society Vs. Anand. Nr. New Water Tank Anand, Gujarat. Pan : Awppk 5536 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.05.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”], For A.Y. 2011–12, Confirming The Addition Of Rs.9,81,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 69A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, In Respect Of Cash Deposits In Her Savings Bank Account Vide His Order Dated 26.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

cash deposits in her savings bank account vide his order dated 26.12.2018 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 599 days in filing the present appeal before us. The assessee ... filed an application seeking condonation of delay accompanied by a duly sworn affidavit dated 20.03.2025, explaining the reasons for the belated filing. As per the condonation application and said affidavit it was clarified that the assessee 2 is a lady belonging to a modest background with limited awareness of legal

Darshit Gunwantbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 571/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-22 Darshit Gunantbhai Shah Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) B/2/236, Madhuvrund Society Vs. Ahmedabad. Ghatlodia Ahmedabad 380 061. Pan : Awmps 9760 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Assessee By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 25.01.2023 For The Assessment Year 2021– 22, Wherein The Disallowance Of Rs.4,67,802/- Made Under Section 43B Of The Act By The Was Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 43B

assessment year 2021– 22, wherein the disallowance of Rs.4,67,802/- made under section 43B of the Act by the was confirmed. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 717 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. In support of the condonation, the assessee ... Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], wherein it was held that liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay, provided the explanation is not mala fide or a device to delay the proceedings. Moreover, the learned Departmental Representative has not raised any serious objection

Raymalbhai Gokalbhai Patel, Banaskantha vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Palanpur

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 286/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.286/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Raymalbhai Gokalbhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ Dhakha, Taluka Dhanera Ward-1 V/S. Banaskantha – 385 310 Palanpur – 385 310 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cthpp 2593 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars Revenue By : Shri Uday Krishanrao Kakne, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 24/07/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Raymalbhai Gokalbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst.Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia &For Respondent: Shri Uday Krishanrao Kakne, Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 69A

upheld by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted.” 3. The appeal is time-barred by 137 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. 4. The Ld.Counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the impugned assessment order dated 28/03/2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 read ... Ld.CIT(A) dated 24/07/2024 to submit that the same is also an ex-parte order. The Ld.Counsel referring to the application for condonation of delay has submitted that, in fact, the assessee Raymalbhai Gokalbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year 2017-18 is a farmer and he is neither literate nor computer