← 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

Lalbagh Christian Educational Society, Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.104/Lkw/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Lalbagh Christian Educational V. The Commissioner Of Society Income Tax (Exemption) Lal Bagh, Lucknow-226001. 5Th Floor, Tc-46, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Next To Lohia Hospital, Indra Nagar, Luckow-226010. Pan:Aaatl2080P अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 10 07 2025 Pronouncement: O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 119(2)(b)

Because the CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the assessee overlooking the issue of condonation of delay caused in filing Form No. 10B, such delay being condonable as per section 119(2)(b), petition for which is pending adjudication before ... short, the prayer of the assessee is for setting aside the impugned order for re-consideration of the matter as the application seeking condonation of delay is pending before the Ld. CIT(E). 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, contended that the Ld. CIT(E), Lucknow, vide

Shri Tirupati Balaji Traders, Nainital vs. ACIT, Nainital

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 214/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalacit, Shri Tirupati Balaji Traders, Circle-3, 86 Ramsay Road, Vs. Nainital. Tallital, Nainital-263001, Uttarakhand. Pan-Acdfs8473Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pavan Kumar Nath, Adv., Department By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/07/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi (‘The Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 30.05.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, From The Perusal Of The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), It Is Seen That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed The Impugned Orders Ex-Parte Without Providing Sufficient Opportunities Of Being Heard To The Assessee, Thereby Confirming The Additions Made By The Ao. Regarding Delay In Filing Of Appeal, An Application Algonwith Affidavit Shri Tirupati Balaji Traders Vs. Acit Is Filed Before Us Wherein It Is Stated That The Firm Got Dissolved & Partner Did Not Access To It Portal. When Assessee Sought Advise From Counsel For Vsv, The Fact Of Passing Of Order By Cit(A) Came To The Notice. Under These Circumstances, Appeal Was Filed Delay. Ld. Ar Accordingly Prayed For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal & Further Prayed To Delete The Additions Made On Assumptions & Presumptions. 3. The Ld. Cit-Dr Supported The Orders Of The Lower Authorities.

passing of order by CIT(A) came to the notice. Under these circumstances, appeal was filed delay. Ld. AR accordingly prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and further prayed to delete the additions made on assumptions and presumptions. 3. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the orders ... support of the claim made in grounds of appeals. 5. Under these facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay as the assessee has successfully demonstrated that it has reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal. Further this appeal is restored to the file