← 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

Amarkantak Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2338/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyamarkantak Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suit 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Pan No. :Aakca 5395 B (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.01.2024 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. At The Outset, On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, I Find That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 235 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Second Wave Of Covid-19 The Office Of The Assessee Was Not Functioning Properly & The Accountant Who Was Looking After The Tax Matter Skipped To Inform About The Passing Of The Ex-Parte Order By The Ld.Cit(A) For Which The Assessee Could Not File Appeal Before The Tribunal Within The Stipulated Time. He Further Submitted That The Assessee Is Not Having Knowledge About The Passing Of The Appellate Order

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

find that the appeal of the assessee is barred by 235 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein that due to second wave of Covid-19 the office of the assessee was not functioning properly ... assessee is not having knowledge about the passing of the appellate order, 2 ITANo.2338/KOL/2024 therefore, the delay was occurred and he pleaded to condone the delay and remand the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to pass the order on merits. 3. On the other hand

Haji Ismail Habib Mosque, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2742/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 2742/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-15) Haji Ismail Haji Habib V/S. Ito Exemption, Ward 1(3), Mosque बिाम Mumbai 139, Ibrahim Mohamed Room No. 619, 6Th Floor, Merchand Road, Mumbai- Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te 400003 Building, Peddar Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaath0456P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Tanzil Padvekar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 115BSection 250

affidavit has been filed. On the contrary, Ld. DR has contested the said application and requested to reject the application for seeking condonation of delay. 4. After having heard the counsels for both the parties and considering the entire factual position as explained before us, and also keeping in view ... justifiably and properly explaining the delay, which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression ‘sufficient cause’ Liberally, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is admitted to be heard on the merits. 5. I notice that no proper representation