← 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

Mr. Hari Prakash, Lucknow vs. DCIT-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 538/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.538/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr Hari Prakash V. Dcit-6 551K/230, Bhilawan, Chander Lucknow. Nagar Alambagh, Lucknow, Lucknow-226005. Pan:Ajxpp1332L अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Manoj Bhatnagar, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 08 07 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Bhatnagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 221Section 44A

During the course of hearing, it was noted that the appeal is barred by time. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the application seeking condonation of delay ... well settled by the various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court that while considering the application seeking condonation of delay the Court/Tribunal should adopt a liberal approach to secure the ends of justice, the litigant should not be thrown out unless there is deliberate and gross negligence

Yeakub Mondal, Suri, Birbhum vs. Income Tax Officer, Suri, Birbhum

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 439/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.439/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Yeakub Mondal, Vs Ito, Suri, Birbhum C/O Obaidullah Mondal Bishore, Po : Bishore, Rampurhat, Birbhum-731238 Pan No. :Cnepm 3852 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Kumarjit Das, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 04.09.2024, Passed For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. Shri Kumarjit Das, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mrinmay Basak, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 89 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Mentioning The Sufficient Reasons For Delay In Filing The Appeal. Ld. Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Serious Objection. As The Reasons Stated In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Are Found To Be Plausible, Therefore, The Delay Of 89 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Submitted That This Appeal Is A Duplication Of Another Appeal Being Ita No.23/Kol/2025, Which Has Already Been Disposed Off By The Division Bench Of The Tribunal Vide Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Kumarjit Das, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr.DR

delay in filing the appeal. Ld. Sr. DR also did not raise serious objection. As the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay are found to be plausible, therefore, the delay of 89 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing