← 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

Banumathy Educational Service Trust, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Exemptions, Ward, Trichy

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

ITA 1228/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1228/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Banumathy Educational Service Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Best Matriculation School, Mariamman Exemptions Ward, Koil Road, Bye Pass Rountana, Trichy. Thanjavur 613 001. [Pan:Aabtb6646G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, 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 10.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 30 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: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

year 2020-21. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 30 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.1228/Chny/25 find the reasons stated

Gangavalli Educational Trust, Salem vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Salem

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

ITA 1226/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1226/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gangavalli Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 9/636, Pallakadu, Naduvalur, Exemptions Ward, Gangavalli, Salem 636 105. Salem. [Pan:Aabtg8124A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, 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:

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 10Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

return of income and passing intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act dated 02.10.2019. When the Assessing Officer specifically asked about condonation of delay in filing Form 10B, the assessee has submitted that an application dated 20.03.2020 has been filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Salem ... condonation of delay for filing of Form 10B belatedly. Since the application for condonation of delay for filing of Form 10B is still pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Salem, the Assessing Officer adopted the total income at ₹.1,29,81,684/- as was determined in the intimation

Nitu G Mandowara, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Ncc-4, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1126/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1126/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2021-22 Nitu G Mandowara, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.3C, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Jain Manor Apartment, Non-Corporate Circle-4, Periyaswamy Road East, Coimbatore. R.S.Puram, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641 002. [Pan: Dqkpm1862H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.Girish Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 144Section 37(1)

reasons stated (ill health & mental illness) in the condonation petition which is supported by an affidavit of ITA No.1126 /Chny/2025 the assessee, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. The ld. counsel also shown the copy of FIR filed in connection to the illness and mental stress ... expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. However, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of rejection of petition for condonation of delay. There was 374 days delay in filing the appeal. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Before the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted

Mahabir S/O Sh Ram Niwas, Rohtak vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Narnaul

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1779/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalmahabir Income Tax Officer, S/O Sh. Ram Niwas Nangal Ward, Narnaul. Kalia, Narnaul-123001 Vs. Pan:Cgkpm9657H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ca Pranshu Singhal Department By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 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 Cit(A) In Short) Dated 26.02.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2013-14/10168587 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 24 Days For Which An Affidavit Along With Condonation Petition Was Filed By The Assessee Wherein It Is Stated That Email-Id Provided In Form No.35 Was Different & The Notices Sent By The Ld. Cit(A) Were On Different Email-Id, Therefore, The Notices For Hearing Could Not Be Served Upon The Assessee. Therefore, Neither The Assessee Could Be Able To Appear Before Ld. Cit(A) Nor Have Any Knowledge About The Passing Of The Order By Ld. Cit(A). When The Assessee Received Notice For Pending Penalty Proceedings, He Contacted With Its Counsel Who Intimated About The Appellate Prodder. Under These Facts & Circumstances, It Is Requested That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Be Condoned & Appeal Be Admitted For Adjudication.

Section 147

appeal be admitted for adjudication. 2 IT No.1779/Del/2025 Mahabir vs. ITO 3. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR objected to the condonation of delay in the filing of the appeal. 4. Heard both the parties. From the perusal of the affidavit filed by the assessee and the reasons stated ... such litigant and his right of hearing of the appeal on merit ought not to be shut. Looking to these facts, we condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication. 5. Before us Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that due to the fact that

Shree Rama Rajya Parishad, Palwal Faridabad vs. Income Tax Offficer, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed

ITA 5704/DEL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5704/Del/2024 (Assessment Year: -----) Shree Rama Rajya Parishad, Commissioner Of Income Near Prem Dairy, Tax (Exemption), By Pass Road, Vs. Chandigarh New Colony, Palwal, Haryana-121101 Pan:Dnqpd2476F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ca Raaj Kumar Sohanpal Rawat Department By Shri N.K. Bansal, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh (‘The Cit(E) In Short), Dated 06.08.2024 Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12A & 80G Of The Act. As Both The Appeals Are Related To Issue Of Registration U/S 12A & 80G, Thus They Are Decided By A Common Order. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 39 Days For Which An Affidavit Along With Condonation Petition Was Filed By Theof The Assessee Society Namely Ms. Santushti Thapar Wherein It Is Stated That It Had Engaged One Ca Pooja Sharma To Represent & File The Necessary Details Before The Ld. Cit(E). However, Due To Her Pregnancy, She Could Not Be Able To File The Appeals Within Time. Under These Facts & Circumstances, It Is Requested That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Be Condoned & Both The Appeals Be Admitted For Adjudication. Reliance Is Also Placed On The Judgement Of 2 It Nos.5703 & 5704/Del/2024 Shree Rama Rajaya Parishad Vs. Cit Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc).

Section 12A

Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR objected to the condonation of delay in the filing of the appeal. 4. Heard both the parties. From the perusal of the affidavit filed by the assessee and the reasons stated ... consideration to such litigant and right of hearing of the appeal on merit ought not to be shut. Looking to these facts, we condoned the delay in filing both the appeals and admit them for adjudication. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted assessee had filed application

Shree Rama Rajya Parishad, Palwal Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed

ITA 5703/DEL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5704/Del/2024 (Assessment Year: -----) Shree Rama Rajya Parishad, Commissioner Of Income Near Prem Dairy, Tax (Exemption), By Pass Road, Vs. Chandigarh New Colony, Palwal, Haryana-121101 Pan:Dnqpd2476F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ca Raaj Kumar Sohanpal Rawat Department By Shri N.K. Bansal, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh (‘The Cit(E) In Short), Dated 06.08.2024 Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12A & 80G Of The Act. As Both The Appeals Are Related To Issue Of Registration U/S 12A & 80G, Thus They Are Decided By A Common Order. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 39 Days For Which An Affidavit Along With Condonation Petition Was Filed By Theof The Assessee Society Namely Ms. Santushti Thapar Wherein It Is Stated That It Had Engaged One Ca Pooja Sharma To Represent & File The Necessary Details Before The Ld. Cit(E). However, Due To Her Pregnancy, She Could Not Be Able To File The Appeals Within Time. Under These Facts & Circumstances, It Is Requested That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Be Condoned & Both The Appeals Be Admitted For Adjudication. Reliance Is Also Placed On The Judgement Of 2 It Nos.5703 & 5704/Del/2024 Shree Rama Rajaya Parishad Vs. Cit Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc).

Section 12A

Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR objected to the condonation of delay in the filing of the appeal. 4. Heard both the parties. From the perusal of the affidavit filed by the assessee and the reasons stated ... consideration to such litigant and right of hearing of the appeal on merit ought not to be shut. Looking to these facts, we condoned the delay in filing both the appeals and admit them for adjudication. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted assessee had filed application