← 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

Maruthanayagam Saravanan, Dindigul vs. ITO Ward-1, Dindigul

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

ITA 4056/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 4055, 4056, 4057 & 4059/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Maruthanayagam The Income Tax Officer, Saravanan, Vs. Ward 1, No.1/56F, Ponnagaram Dindigul. Adiyanoothu, Dindigul – 624 003. Pan: Bzips 3318F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri G. Akash, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 250

reasonable cause for condoning the same. 3. On perusing the orders of FAA, we noted that the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay stating the reason that the assessee is unaware of the penalty orders being passed by the AO. The assessee, only upon receiving a call from ... submissions and perused the material on record. The FAA had dismissed the appeals of the assessee by rejecting the assessee’s request for condonation of delay of 202 days in filing the appeals. In our view, the reason cited by assessee in its petition before FAA seems quite reasonable

Maruthanayagam Saravanan, Dindigul vs. ITO Ward-1 Dindigul, Dindigul

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

ITA 4055/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 4055, 4056, 4057 & 4059/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Maruthanayagam The Income Tax Officer, Saravanan, Vs. Ward 1, No.1/56F, Ponnagaram Dindigul. Adiyanoothu, Dindigul – 624 003. Pan: Bzips 3318F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri G. Akash, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 250

reasonable cause for condoning the same. 3. On perusing the orders of FAA, we noted that the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay stating the reason that the assessee is unaware of the penalty orders being passed by the AO. The assessee, only upon receiving a call from ... submissions and perused the material on record. The FAA had dismissed the appeals of the assessee by rejecting the assessee’s request for condonation of delay of 202 days in filing the appeals. In our view, the reason cited by assessee in its petition before FAA seems quite reasonable

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Salem vs. Selva Stone Export Private Limited, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2018-19 is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2051/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2049, 2050 & 2051/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Selva Stone Export Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. No.27-A, Jagadevi Road, Central Circle, Chennai Bye Pass, Salem Krishnagiri – 635 104. Pan: Aarcs 7703E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Bipin C.N, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Viswanathan, CA
Section 133ASection 139Section 142Section 143Section 148

purposes. :- 8 -: ITA Nos.2049 to 2051/Chny/2025 11. There is delay of 24 days in filing the appeal. The Revenue filed an affidavit for condonation of delay of 24 days. On going through the reasons stated, we are of the considered view that the reasons stated by the assessee constitute ... reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 12. The ground of appeal relates to deletion of addition of Rs.3,43,71,200/- on account of share application money

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Salem vs. Selva Stone Export Private Limited, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2018-19 is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2050/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2049, 2050 & 2051/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Selva Stone Export Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. No.27-A, Jagadevi Road, Central Circle, Chennai Bye Pass, Salem Krishnagiri – 635 104. Pan: Aarcs 7703E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Bipin C.N, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Viswanathan, CA
Section 133ASection 139Section 142Section 143Section 148

purposes. :- 8 -: ITA Nos.2049 to 2051/Chny/2025 11. There is delay of 24 days in filing the appeal. The Revenue filed an affidavit for condonation of delay of 24 days. On going through the reasons stated, we are of the considered view that the reasons stated by the assessee constitute ... reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 12. The ground of appeal relates to deletion of addition of Rs.3,43,71,200/- on account of share application money

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Salem vs. Selva Stone Export Private Limited, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2018-19 is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2049/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2049, 2050 & 2051/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Selva Stone Export Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. No.27-A, Jagadevi Road, Central Circle, Chennai Bye Pass, Salem Krishnagiri – 635 104. Pan: Aarcs 7703E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Bipin C.N, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Viswanathan, CA
Section 133ASection 139Section 142Section 143Section 148

purposes. :- 8 -: ITA Nos.2049 to 2051/Chny/2025 11. There is delay of 24 days in filing the appeal. The Revenue filed an affidavit for condonation of delay of 24 days. On going through the reasons stated, we are of the considered view that the reasons stated by the assessee constitute ... reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 12. The ground of appeal relates to deletion of addition of Rs.3,43,71,200/- on account of share application money

Shri Narayan Jan Kalyan Ewam Gramin Vikas Samiti, Barnahal Mainpuri Up vs. ITO Exemption Ghaziabad, Income Tax Office Exemption Ghaziabad

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 244/DEL/2026[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.244/धिल्ली/2026 (नि.व. 2017-18) Shri Narayan Jan Kalyan Ewam Gramin Vikas Samiti Barnahal Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh, 205261 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaoas-9172-N बिाम Vs. Income Tax Office [Exemption], ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Rajeev Kumar Kulshreshtha, Advocate प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2026 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’) Dated 27.06.2025, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 32 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional. The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus, Delay Of 32 Days In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar Kulshreshtha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)

dated 27.06.2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The appeal is time barred by 32 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing