← 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

Binay Jaiswal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 62(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 910/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.910/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Binay Jaiswal, Vs Ito, Ward-62(1), Kolkata 17, Jugal Kishore Das Lane, Po: Beadon Street, Kolkata-700006 Pan No. :Aifpj 9698 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Tibrewal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-6, Delhi, Dated 13.12.2024 Passed For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Filed Belatedly By 59 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection For Condoning The Delay. Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That This Is An Appeal Against The Order U/S.143(1) Of The Act Issued By The Cpc. It Was The Submission That As Per The Provisions Of Section 143(1) Of The Act, Before Making Any Adjustment

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

assessee has been filed belatedly by 59 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any serious objection for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the delay

Dui Bandhur Restaurant, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-38(1), Midnapur

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

ITA 115/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.115/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) M/S Dui Bandhur Restaurant Vs Ito, Ward-38(1), Kolkata C/O M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C.R.Avenue, 3Rd Floor Kolkata-700072 Pan No. :Aamfd 7348 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

assessee was not done. The contents of the affidavit filed before us as under :- 3 ITANo.115/KOL/2025 3. Accordingly, ld. AR prayed for condonation of delay and admit the appeal for hearing, to which ld. Sr. DR did not raise any serious objection. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances ... case and the sufficient reasons mentioned by the assessee in its affidavit which are plausible and not found to be false, I condone the delay of 442 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4 ITANo.115/KOL/2025 4. It was the submission

K.K.Chinnaputhur Paccs, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 829/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.828 & 829/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 K.K. Chinnaputhur Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Society, 52/37A, Ward 2(4), Reddipalayam, Chinnapudhur Post, Tiruppur. Dharapuram, Tiruppur 638 656. [Pan:Aabak3665K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 29.08.2024 & 18.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 20015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 3Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 144 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

K.K. Chinnaputhur Paccs, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 828/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.828 & 829/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 K.K. Chinnaputhur Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Society, 52/37A, Ward 2(4), Reddipalayam, Chinnapudhur Post, Tiruppur. Dharapuram, Tiruppur 638 656. [Pan:Aabak3665K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 29.08.2024 & 18.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 20015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 3Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 144 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

Ramasamy Rajendran, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 818/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.817 & 818/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ramasamy Rajendran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 4/43C, Kollipatti, Reddipatti, Ward 1, Namakkal 637 002. Namakkal. [Pan:Aswpr5141F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Tamil Amudhan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri Tamil Amudhan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 21 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 ... matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation petition as may be filed by the assessee and condone the delay. The ld. CIT(A) shall decide the issue afresh after considering the written submissions/ documentary evidences as may be filed by the assessee

Ramasamy Rajendran, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 817/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.817 & 818/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ramasamy Rajendran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 4/43C, Kollipatti, Reddipatti, Ward 1, Namakkal 637 002. Namakkal. [Pan:Aswpr5141F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Tamil Amudhan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri Tamil Amudhan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

adjudication. 4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 21 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 ... matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation petition as may be filed by the assessee and condone the delay. The ld. CIT(A) shall decide the issue afresh after considering the written submissions/ documentary evidences as may be filed by the assessee

Antony Sunil, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(7), Chennai

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

ITA 815/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.815/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Antony Sunil, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 59, 11Th Trust Cross Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(7), Mandavelipakkam, Chennai 600 028. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Bxbps7987P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.11.2023 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 415 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 50CSection 55ASection 56(2)Section 69

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 415 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

Alamelu Memorial Charitable Trust, Thiruvallur vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 814/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.814/Chny/2025 Alamelu Memorial Charitable Trust, Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax No. 46, 2Nd Street, Sp Munusamy [Exemptions], Nagar, Gnt Road, Thervazhi, Chennai. Gummidipoondi, Thiruvallur 601 201. [Pan:Aaita6393E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Vishva Padmanabhan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Nandha Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai In Rejecting The Application Filed In Form 10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri K. Vishva Padmanabhan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Nandha Kumar, CIT
Section 10Section 12ASection 4Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

short]. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 294 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 2 I.T.A. No.814/Chny/25 find the reasons stated by the assessee ... rejecting the application filed in Form 10AB seeking approval under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act without condoning the delay in filing Form 10AB. 4. We note that the assessee filed online application on 09.10.2023 in Form No. 10AB seeking approval under clause

Perumal Pillai Muthiah Pillai Sankaranarayanan, Srivilliputtur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Virudhunagar, Income Tax Office

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

ITA 478/CHNY/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.478/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Perumal Pillai Muthiah Pillai Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Sankaranarayanan, No. 1A, Income Tax, Krishnankoil, Vpm Nagar, Circle – 1, Srivilliputtur, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. Tamil Nadu 626 190. [Pan:Avkps6163K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.03.2023 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 628 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 628 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 2 I.T.A. No.478/Chny/25 find the reasons stated

Johnson Paul Irene Paul, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 1230/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1230/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Johnson Paul Irene Paul, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 143, Sipcot Staff Housing Ward 1, Colony, Mookandapalli, Hosur. Hosur 635 126. [Pan:Abcpi4853J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 334 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

year 2015-16. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 334 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 2 I.T.A. No.1230/Chny/25 find the reasons stated ... Thus, considering facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of natural justice, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is at liberty to file