← 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

Pola Co Operative Societies Limited, Fatehgarh Sahib vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Sirhind, Sirhind

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1146/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1146/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pola Co-Operative Societies Limited Ito Village Pola बनाम/ Vs. Ward Sirhind Fatehgarh Sahib 140406 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabat-3441-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca)– Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Central (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 15-10- 2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S 144 Of The Act On 24-05-2021. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Assessment Of Income At Rs.554.22 Lacs. The Assessee Has Failed To Appear Before Ld. Ao. The Ld. Cit(A) Did

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA)– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 144

Rs.554.22 Lacs. The assessee has failed to appear before Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 2.5 months. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The only prayer of Ld. AR is condonation of delay in first ... guiding principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (7 SCC 123), we condone the delay in first appeal and set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication

Shri Satish Soin, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Satish Soin, बनाम The Acit, House No.31, Garden Enclave, Central Circle-2, Vs South City-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Advps6254N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan Garg, Cas राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

153A of the Act. 5. The Registry has alleged that appeal is time barred by 38 days. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. He has also raised additional ground of appeal vide which it has been pleaded that approval granted u/s 153D is erroneous. 6. Before ... appeal has been decided by the Tribunal on 29.04.2025. In that case also, appeal was time barred by 38 days. The Tribunal has condoned the delay and also deleted the addition on merit. In that case also, the Tribunal has considered the alleged ITA-303/CHD/2019

Kathir Kaman Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -3(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 20/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.17, 18, 19 & 20/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Kathir Kaman Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of New No. 40 (Old No. 23), Sarojini Income Tax, Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 3(1) Chennai. [Pan:Aacck4534C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate & Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 17.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 2 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which ... find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 2 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented

Kathir Kaman Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 19/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.17, 18, 19 & 20/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Kathir Kaman Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of New No. 40 (Old No. 23), Sarojini Income Tax, Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 3(1) Chennai. [Pan:Aacck4534C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate & Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 17.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 2 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which ... find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 2 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented

Kathir Kaman Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 18/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.17, 18, 19 & 20/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Kathir Kaman Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of New No. 40 (Old No. 23), Sarojini Income Tax, Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 3(1) Chennai. [Pan:Aacck4534C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate & Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 17.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 2 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which ... find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 2 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented

Kathir Kaman Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 17/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.17, 18, 19 & 20/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Kathir Kaman Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of New No. 40 (Old No. 23), Sarojini Income Tax, Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 3(1) Chennai. [Pan:Aacck4534C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate & Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 17.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 2 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which ... find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 2 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented