← 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

Kalpana Ravikumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(40, Chennai

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

ITA 1320/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1320/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kalpana Ravikumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 78, Block 2, 2Nd Floor, Non Corporate Ward 8(4), Bbc City Paark, No. 76, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chinna Porur, Chennai 600 116. [Pan:Aiupr6455L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Raghav Rajeev Menon, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 372 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit As 2

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Rajeev Menon, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 148Section 250Section 54

year 2012-13. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 372 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 as 2 I.T.A. No.1320/Chny/25 well as medical reports

Lakshmanan, Karthik vs. Assistant Commissioner, Salem

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

ITA 1309/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1309/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Lakshmanan Karthik, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 5-82/Na, South Veethi, Income Tax, Thammampatty Main Road, Ward 1 Attur T.K., Salem 636 107. Salem. [Pan:Dpspk6889B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Subhashini Ganapathy, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.02.2024 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 6 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit As Well As Medical Reports, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are 2

For Appellant: Ms. Subhashini Ganapathy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 40

year 2023-24. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 6 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 as well as medical reports, we find the reasons

Vellaikannu Rajagounder Subramaniam, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-3, Vellore

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

ITA 1307/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1307/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vellaikannu Rajagounder Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Subramaniam, No. 4, New Street, Ward 3, Thirunagar, Gandhinagar, Vellore. Vellore 632 006. [Pan:Abtps6539A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Murali, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 248 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, C.A. (virtual)For Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 248 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, 2 I.T.A. No.1307/Chny/25 we find the reasons stated

Jose Salvador Bemvindo Fernandes, Cuncolim, Goa vs. Income Tax Officer, W-1, Margao, Goa

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

ITA 56/PAN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.56/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) Jose Salvador Bemvindo Ito-Ward-1, Vs Fernandes, Blessings Pioneer . Voddy, Cuncolim, Complex, Salcete-403703, Old Market, Goa. Margoa, Goa-403601. Pan/Gir No. Abjpf7713K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Narcinva Lotlikar.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 07.07.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale ,Jm: The Assesse Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Nfac/Cit(A) Delhi Passed U/Sec147 R.W.S144B & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, It Was Found That There Is A Delay Of 45 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Sufficient Cause Was Explained & The Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The 2 Ita. No.56/Pan/2025 Jose Salvador Bemvindo Fernandes. Delay & Admit The Appeal. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Ex-Parte Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer.

Section 144

delay of 45 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and sufficient cause was explained and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, we condone