← 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

Minesh Bipinbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 650/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.23/Ahd/2024 Asstt.Year : 2015-16 & Asstt.Year 2016-17 Minesh Bipinbhai Patel The Dcit, Cent.Cir.1 10, Shantivan Society Vs. Race Course Sussen Tarsali Road Vadodara. Makarpura Vadodara 390 010. Pan : Acqpp 7756 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr & Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR and Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

vide order dated 26.12.2017 and for A.Y. 2016–17, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. 2. Condonation of Delay 2.1 The Registry noted delay of 153 days in filing both appeals before us. The assessee filed condonation application. It is seen that the impugned appellate ... control of the assessee. The learned IT(SS)A No.23 & ITA No.650/Ahd/2024 3 Departmental Representative has not raised any objection to the condonation of delay. 2.3 In view of the above, relying on the ratio laid down by many judicial forums including the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Vidhyotejak Samaj, Rajkot vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, these five appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 707/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.703-707/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vidhyotejak Samaj बनाम/ Act, Cpc, Tds, H.B. Jasani Vidya Bhavan, Ghaziabad Vs. Chhelbhai Dave Marg, Vidhyanagar, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatv 1358 G (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Senior-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Senior-DR
Section 200A(1)

five appeals filed by the assessee, are barred by limitation by 1672 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition of condonation of delay and the contents of the affidavit filed before the Bench, in respect of these five ... appeals are similar and identical. Therefore, we take into account a sample copy of petition for condonation of delay, which is filed by the assessee in ITA No.703/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2009–2010. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has explained the sufficient cause of delay in filing these

Vidhyotejak Samaj, Rajkot vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, these five appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 706/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.703-707/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vidhyotejak Samaj बनाम/ Act, Cpc, Tds, H.B. Jasani Vidya Bhavan, Ghaziabad Vs. Chhelbhai Dave Marg, Vidhyanagar, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatv 1358 G (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Senior-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Senior-DR
Section 200A(1)

five appeals filed by the assessee, are barred by limitation by 1672 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition of condonation of delay and the contents of the affidavit filed before the Bench, in respect of these five ... appeals are similar and identical. Therefore, we take into account a sample copy of petition for condonation of delay, which is filed by the assessee in ITA No.703/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2009–2010. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has explained the sufficient cause of delay in filing these

Vidhyotejak Samaj, Rajkot vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, these five appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 705/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.703-707/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vidhyotejak Samaj बनाम/ Act, Cpc, Tds, H.B. Jasani Vidya Bhavan, Ghaziabad Vs. Chhelbhai Dave Marg, Vidhyanagar, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatv 1358 G (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Senior-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Senior-DR
Section 200A(1)

five appeals filed by the assessee, are barred by limitation by 1672 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition of condonation of delay and the contents of the affidavit filed before the Bench, in respect of these five ... appeals are similar and identical. Therefore, we take into account a sample copy of petition for condonation of delay, which is filed by the assessee in ITA No.703/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2009–2010. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has explained the sufficient cause of delay in filing these

Vidhyotejak Samaj, Rajkot vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, these five appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 704/RJT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.703-707/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vidhyotejak Samaj बनाम/ Act, Cpc, Tds, H.B. Jasani Vidya Bhavan, Ghaziabad Vs. Chhelbhai Dave Marg, Vidhyanagar, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatv 1358 G (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Senior-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Senior-DR
Section 200A(1)

five appeals filed by the assessee, are barred by limitation by 1672 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition of condonation of delay and the contents of the affidavit filed before the Bench, in respect of these five ... appeals are similar and identical. Therefore, we take into account a sample copy of petition for condonation of delay, which is filed by the assessee in ITA No.703/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2009–2010. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has explained the sufficient cause of delay in filing these

Vidhyotejak Samaj, Rajkot vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, these five appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 703/RJT/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.703-707/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vidhyotejak Samaj बनाम/ Act, Cpc, Tds, H.B. Jasani Vidya Bhavan, Ghaziabad Vs. Chhelbhai Dave Marg, Vidhyanagar, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatv 1358 G (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By :Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Senior-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Senior-DR
Section 200A(1)

five appeals filed by the assessee, are barred by limitation by 1672 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition of condonation of delay and the contents of the affidavit filed before the Bench, in respect of these five ... appeals are similar and identical. Therefore, we take into account a sample copy of petition for condonation of delay, which is filed by the assessee in ITA No.703/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2009–2010. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has explained the sufficient cause of delay in filing these